Posted by Dennis Herrick on January 01, 2010 at 08:39:17:
From the Union Leader. The snobs in Portsmouth are pulling the same thing as Keene on their down-and-out. Wanna bet these hypocritical snobs go to church every Sunday too. No compassion from government then who needs it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cold in Keene: Bureaucracy is cruel
7 hours, 26 minutes ago
People who call advocates of limited government heartless need to pause and consider Keene's response to some homeless men's immediate need for shelter.
When six men were found living in a shack compassionately provided to them by a private property owner, the bureaucracy kicked into gear. The shack had to be inspected. If not up to code, the men would be kicked out, regardless of how much more dangerous living on the street might be.
When Don Primrose of Sullivan rented a commercial building for the men to live in for the winter, the bureaucracy declared he'd have to wait. The shelter had to be government-approved, which could take months. What would become of the men who needed to get out of the cold immediately? The bureaucracy didn't care.
The fact is, there is nothing so heartless as a government bureaucracy. It cares about its rules and nothing else. And all government-provided charity is bureaucratic.
The more power we give to government, the more of our lives will be dictated by the cold rules of heartless bureaucracies. Compassion meets its full measure only where government control ends.
YOUR COMMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they concerned for the citizens of the state and the cost of housing or are they in it for their own financial gain?
Check out the members of the State of NH's Building Code Review Board. Each one of these "Codists" have an agenda. There's not one member that represents the citizens of the state and the citizens only.
http://www.nh.gov/safety/boardsandcommissions/bldgcode/meetings/documents/Ph102309.pdf
The state has a lot of these boards. It's kind of like letting nerds from the quality control department rule the world.
- Dennis Herrick, East Hampstead, NH
Don't you see that homeless people are supposed to freeze to death because they refuse to be good "wage slaves" and live in overpriced , over-assessed houses and pay high property taxes to support big government.
- Chris, Merrimack
Housing codes and zoning laws are an unconstitutional intrusion on the rights of property owner. They evolved early last century starting in NYC and gaining the superficial appearance of legitimacy thanks to the Supreme Court rubber stamping them as "Grade A Statism".
With regards to James T: "No, you'not on the board, I guess, but yes, they do indeed act in your name. You elect them to do so. It's called Civics 101, and it used to be common sense and commonly known. Where were YOU educated?"
After spending much of my lifetime studying and pondering politics and law I finally grasped the inherent fatal flaw in the theory of "representational government" - quite simply, it's an impossible Utopian dream that can not ever be realized.
Many people don't or can't vote - and thus are not represented. Many others vote for a losing candidate - and thus are not represented. A minority of citizens vote for the winning candidate, who aside from the frequent radical change in views that takes place when the campaign is replaced with a term of office, is often in disagreement with individual voters on specific issues. Total it all up and the sum is a non-representative system of government.
That is part of the explanation of how small minded incompetent power tripping bureaucrats manage to become petty tyrants ruling over the mundane details of your life and requiring you to pay them off and beg for your permission slip to live.
"And FYI, WE are the government, not some far-off dictator."
Indeed - that is why we have an ochlocracy - the rule of the mob. And no, the liberty loving individuals who also appreciate the rights of life and property most certainly don't speak for the NH residents who believe in power, control, and the iron fist of the State imposing their collective will upon those who dare to dream of living as they wish rather than obeying the mindless soulless dictates of the mob.
- Pat Henry, Keene
PS to Jerry Conner--You are as contemptible as everyone else who argues against libertarianism by calling it anarchy. Arguing against your view of government is not arguing against all government. And you conclude that I am against people who cannot "fend for themselves" and that entitlements are merely charity. I explain the difference frequently.
Carmen of Exeter, I agree with you entirely. Care for the hurricane victims who ignored the obvious is not anyone else's duty (because slavery is unconstitutional). I was merely equating FEMA to local Code Enforcement (also Minimum Wage) as efforts to establish standards that end up making productive work illegal. Steve T., I do not elect anyone to impose prior restraint on anyone else's work or private property, and I criticize Republicans and Democrats alike when they do so in our name. So don't lecture me on civics, especially in the likely case that you are a "public servant."
- Spike, Brentwood NH
- James T., Manchester
Ok James, where in the constitution does it allow for the current regulations put on property today? Sure people in the construction business have "pushed" many rules and regulations for their own financial gains. But it doesn't mean those rules are necessary. Want proof? Just look at any historical building. Built without codes and still here centuries later! I have relatives who owned buildings built in the 1600's that were still sound. If these regulations are so good, explain to me why someone has to get a house built in 2005 re insulated because it was not done right the first time? Why didn't those regulations work there? Franklin's comments are very relevant to this discussion. We lost much of our freedom in the pursuit of "safety"! While I'll agree safety is good, being overbearing in applying it is not. Especially when the overbearing party bears no responsibility if something goes wrong. Check out your building ordinances for responsibility. The person doing the work shoulders all of the responsibility for anything done wrong, not the inspecting agency. This editorial is right on the money!
- Steve, Raymond
Some responses:
Spike says: "I am certainly not the department of code enforcement, and they ought not act in my name." No, you'not on the board, I guess, but yes, they do indeed act in your name. You elect them to do so. It's called Civics 101, and it used to be common sense and commonly known. Where were YOU educated?
Judy: I was not equating ALL gun owners - 99.9% of whom are rational and don't spend their time marching around in "Gun Pride" style parades trying to provoke or intimidate others. Nor am I from Massachusetts, but it shouldn't matter WHERE I'm from, should it?
Steve in Raymond: Ben Franklin's comment is interesting, and clever, but it's not in the Constitution, so as a Constitutionalist (if you are one) I'm sure you'd agree it's irrelevant to the discussion.
- James T., Manchester
Spike, why not hold those in New Orleans responsible for their own behavior? The government not only gave those residents plenty of time to evacuate, but also provided them with free transportation to do so. Those who chose to put themselves in harms way by staying in a city situated below sea level in the path of a historically powerful hurricane reaped the consequences of their foolishness. The logistics of carrying out a relief effort in this unique enviroment was without precedent. FEMA had its faults, but how about some personal accountability? How about taking responsibility for being an idiot and not leaving town? New Orleans is not Florida or coastal Carolina and should not be put under the same standards as a typical hurricane relief effort, which run pretty smoothely in those areas under the same relief organizations. When one ignores the advice of the government to evacuate, noone has a right to complain about immediate relief in the face of a flooded municipality.
- Carmen, Exeter
Judy from Milford,
You too need to be accurate. Nowhere does James T infer that gun owners or those who belive in the right to bear arms are all "bunker-dwelling militia-types." The correlation is never drawn. All he said that was these types do not speak for everyone and that there are those in Nh that believe that zoning laws are, for the most part, reasonable.
Stop making an issue out of something that isn't even there.
- Jules, Manchester
And there it is, isn't it? These people don't deserve a voice of their own, because they are akin to bums and hobos and want to live in a 'flophouse'. Heaven forbid that anyone should view the homeless as individuals, as human beings. And heaven forbid that anyone should exist without the clumsy hands of government in their lives. That's freedom, right? Do anything you want, so long as you do it my way.
- JB, NB, NH
Once again, inaccuracy rules for the sake of the editorial. The shack was not "provided to them by a private property owner." The men were squatters who built the shack themselves. The property owner took a neutral stance and left it up to the municipality to deal with these homeless men.
This drivel makes it seem that these men have nowhere to go if either of their choices for shelter are not approved by the town in a timely manner. These men have many other options, but have no desire to follow the rules of those offering help at no charge to them, such as area homeless shelters.....sounds like a pattern of not wanting to abide by community standards is a norm for these individuals.
These rules are in place to protect the homeless as well as immediate and neighboring property owners. Here in Manchester there was a huge outcry about the opening of a halfway house in the city and rightfully so......what makes this paper think that because someone offers a building for winter shelter to these men that it should not go through an approval process in the proper jurisdiction? Should anyone be allowed to open such a shelter without meeting community standards? What about the rights of the neighbors and the community? This isn't an issue of a beurocracy trampling upon the rights of the downtrodden. This is another example of sensationalism and unfair criticism of a municiplaity simply trying to do its job. As one reader commented, if an adverse consequence were to take place because the city turned a blind eye to this case, there would be a higher price to pay in both a legal court as well as the court of public opinion.
- Jules, Manchester
Um, what exactly is the author of this editorial suggesting? Anarchy?
Judy, the constitution states that given the need for a well regulated militia made up of private citizens the government shall not infringe upon the right to bear arms. Are you in a well regulated militia, Judy? If not, you are not "living and breathing" your constitutional rights. We don't need a militia any more, so why hasn't the constitution been changed? I think it's about time we stop letting the gun-nuts of the world pervert the intentions of our founding fathers.
It's pretty sad when the majority of comments are more intelligently written than the editorial itself.
- Fred, Amherst
It tells you something about government-provided "shelters" that these guys prefer a shack in the woods.
- Mark, Amherst
Kathy from Kingston,
It's "conscience" not "conscious."
No one wants them to "die out in the elements." But that's a different question from the one raised by the editorial's author. If something terrible like that happened, would the fault be with the people whose job it is to enforce laws enacted by elected officials? I doubt they are that "heartless." This should be addressed by the democratic process, not by the ad hoc, unregulated decision of a single individual.
- Steve, Manchester
Having lived in Keene for well over 20 years, I am used to their style of bureaucracy. It is cumbersome to say the least and it is no surprise that it is difficult to get anything done by either a private citizen or a private company without excessive command and control by the city dictators.
That being said, it is difficult to me to know why the City has not taken a proactive role on the homeless issue. It has clearly taken a laissez faire attitude of "let them eat cake" true to the autocracy they think themselves to be. Homelessness is not a new phenomenon to the City. It is generally the SWNH Community Services that handles the homeless population and while there is some city assistance it does not seem that Keene officials are taking an active and aggressive role, other than to sic the regulators on them.
How about this, instead of relying on the generosity and kindness of Mr. Primrose and his volunteers why not take his example and work with him and the homeless agency and set up a warm shelter and then work at putting these people to work? I think Congress called it workfare back in the mid 90's.
As usual it's a little late now, and certainly it's too late to ask for a federal grant to pay for what is clearly a city government responsibility, but start this year and be ready for next winter.
I'm sure that if there is enough money in the Parks and Rec budget and the Fire Department budget to buy numerous 4 wheel drive tractors, loaders and red SUV's that sit around 90% of the time, there should be enough money to get a reasonably safe home for these people and then work on helping and encouraging them to have a more productive lifestyle.
It is the very high property taxes in Keene as well as the elitist attitude of the governing elite that has kept housing and rent prices out of reach of the common serfs. Additionally, we might even want to look at the Keene schools and the ineffectiveness of the education system in preparing our youth to go out into society without drug, alcohol and self esteem issues.
Odd that only Mr. Primrose and his volunteers get it.....
- Melvin, Keene
Isn't this the same NH town that allowed a group to gather days on end in the town square across the street from businesses, a church, a in the pubic area to smoke pot? Who are those that have lost their morality?
- Jan, Londonderry, NH
To Fred in Keene: that's a slippery slope. Why not enforce a curfew of 9pm for everyone on town, with 6pm set for anyone under the age of 18. Let's add government audio-video surveillance to every home in every room. I'm sure this is but a small price to pay for safety of our citizenry.
- Dan, Manchester
Keene used to be such a nice little town.
Then the "Free State" crowd moved in.
Maybe it's time they moved right back out.
- A Wood, Manchester
- James T., Manchester
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
A quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin
- Steve, Raymond
Thank you James T. for speaking the truth. These people are much better off living in a temporary dwelling, on their own, that has been approved for habitation by someone who actually knows what they are doing.
Spike...as usual, you make direct quotes from the "Holy Order of the Libertarian" and assume everyone has the ability to fend for themselves. I have worked all my life, raised my kids, paid for my house, etc., etc.. However, I still have enough sense to understand that there are always going to be those who have become lost in the shuffle and at times need the help of the rest of us. If they choose to do anything illegal where they are now living they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us and I'm pretty sure they are under the eye(s) of the local constabulary to make sure the law is enforced.
- Jerry Conner, Londonderry
Too many Laws and not enough Good Sense.
We now have upwards of 75,000 pages of tax code alone not to mention other categories of laws and rules.
What we need is a periodic sunset on all of it, a "Purging" so that the Legislature will be busy renewing the good and necessary portions of legal code while allowing the bad/garbage to sunset.
- JP, Warner
Hmm, James T,
And what were you saying about the homeless guys?
Oh wait, you were talking "ifs" and "zoning" and "officials."
The point of the "shelter" was to avoid "cold" and "dying."
Kind of makes the point of the editorial, just without slurring people it disagrees with.
- Bill, Concord
These men do not need to come in. They chose to stay out there as they didn't like the rules of the existing homeless shelters. The rules are there because we learn from history. Mr.Primrose stated that he wouldn't have a curfew at his shelter. I suspect if he goes ahead he will find that a curfew is what keeps a homeless shelter from becoming a flophouse.
At least the bums and hobos from the previous generations had the smarts to move south in the winter.
- H.F.Potter, Winchester
In response to James T. in Manchester, if those men die out in the elements of winter because the good hearted person willing to offer some kind of shelter is turned down by local officials, I hope you can sleep at night, I couldn't with a clear conscious. There are time when the rules need to be bent for the circumstances.
A Kingston Resident
- Kathy Radford, Kingston
While reasonable government regulations and safety are concerns for all of us, the truth is government can not regulate every aspect of life, despite what the current poor excuse for "liberals" want people to believe. What may seem reasonable to 99% of the people might be against some code and some beaurecrat who might get into trouble if he says yes and no trouble at all for saying no, will opt for the careerist path and say no. The current economic crisis, if looked at fairly was the result of decisions made by government going back well into the previous democratic administration(so don't blame this exclusively on Bush or the republicans.) WHen the economy recovers, as it will, I hope these gentlemen will be able to find work and get out of thier shack. In the mean time maybe government can do one of its functions and allow churches and civic organizations to creat more temporary shelters for the homeless. Expediency to save lives or keep people from freezing to death should take priority over minor aspects of code violation.
- jeff, goffstown
Well stated, James T. In a republic, we get the government we deserve. Moreover, bureaucrats don't create zoning ordinances, health and safety codes, etc. and we certainly don't want them failing to do their job of enforcing those laws simply because they decide in a given case that it would be difficult to do so. At that point, they could pick and choose when to enforce the laws and when to ignore them. And that too would lead to an outcry from editorial writers...as well it should. If you don't like the law, elect someone who promises to change it. But until that happens, don't criticize the people responsible for enforcing it for doint their jobs.
- Steve, Manchester
Another victory for Keene's activist Department of New Problem Creation, trying in the name of "code compliance" to exercise prior restraint against just being alive, just as FEMA "enforced high standards" (and thus prevented the delivery of aid) in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
James T., prevention cannot be achieved. Prevention cannot be measured. Nor can we measure the effectiveness of bureaucrats pursuing prevention, except to let politicians and you declare that you are in favor of safety. Enabling government to dictate to us in the absence of harm to anyone else does not prevent bad outcomes. "We are the government" is the mantra of the government employee. I am certainly not the department of code enforcement, and they ought not act in my name.
Editors, such departments don't care "only about rules." Other priorities are permanence, impunity, and the joy of pushing other people around.
- Spike, Brentwood NH
To much government--the nanny state--is what New Hampshire needs to avoid at all cost. Alas, it is clear that James T. from Manchester hails from Massachusetts...because honoring the right to bear arms doesn't make you a bunker-dwelling militia type. It makes you an American who lives and breathes your constitutional rights. If the law lacks compassion, it needs to be changed--or as Pumblechook said, "The law is a ass."
- Judy, Milford, NH
The City's agencies have to protect the lives of its citizens, regardless of their desire to be on their own. These men do not want to be "controlled". They could have been given a warm place to live, but must be home at 9 pm and there will be no drugs or alcohol permitted. That is a small price to have to pay.
- Fred, Keene
If the backyard shelter had burned to the ground killing 4 or 5 men inside, the UL would be all over them, as would Keene officials - and correctly so.
If the shelter being started in Keene is a health or safety hazard, or allows in active drug users, and happens to be near a school or dance studio where kids are, then Keene officials have every right to regulate it and to do so without being pressured by angry law-haters.
The bunker-dwelling milita-types who claim to speak for "freedom" don't speak for NH residents who believe zoning laws are for the most part REASONABLE and make sense.
And FYI, WE are the government, not some far-off dictator.
- James T., Manchester