My town...

[ksdaddy]

....And this isn't the best way to DO it.

 

I know some of the people in the succession group. They're NOT nut jobs but I don't know if this is the way to get things done.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-maine-caribou-20140725,0,6889444,full.story

[milod]

My town is a bit smaller, around 6,000 at this point, with relatively low taxes, a city rec center that doesn't cover its costs and a much smaller police and public works department and overall city employee base.

 

We've spent over a million the past decade on the rodeo grounds complex, $4.5 million on a new industrial park, over a million on the bike and walking path, and now a new retail development.

 

Growth is running at about 25 percent or more last decade and continuing or accelerating currently.

 

The Air Force also pulled out of here about 20 years ago. They'd been running missile sites.

 

On the other hand, "downtown" is doa.

 

For one thing, state law forbids increases in real estate taxes more than 3 percent per year regardless of changes in assessed value. That keeps the kind of rapid increases down a bit. The school district tried to "opt out" of that restriction and it was voted down. Twice.

 

Secondly, I really think that ranch country folk do more on the job than required or expected elsewhere - and they're IMHO probably more willing to scrape to make do.

 

Third, although it comes slowly, the growth is bringing up the assessed property valuations and willingness to spend in preparation for it.

 

We'll just see if the city will make the major museum addition happen next year that's been in the budget for then - before a rail siding possibility was added to the horizon.

 

m

[Bender 4 Life]

succession didn't work for MY town in 1861......probably won't work for yours either.

 

except for a State college my town boasts around 6000 residents (16,000 during school year)

it's like "Mayberry" thank goodness !!!

[Starpeve]

Considering that I live in a city deemed by one stand- up comic to be "The Land of the Shallow Grave", due to our disproportionate number of serial killings , I'd say you fellas are doing pretty well!!

[deeman]

Considering that I live in a city deemed by one stand- up comic to be "The Land of the Shallow Grave", due to our disproportionate number of serial killings , I'd say you fellas are doing pretty well!!

 

Could be worse, you could be living in Perth

[ksdaddy]

I'm less than 20 miles from Perth!

 

New Brunswick that is....

[Bender 4 Life]

the small city 11 miles to my South, (Anniston Al.) has at times led the Nation in per capita homicides, and often led the state in per capita violent crime.

even people from Birmingham get nervous at night in Anniston......I drive thru every night on my way home w/my windows open, and mind my own business.

 

when the residents of Alabama were granted the legally reinforced right to protect ourselves, our property (including vehicles) and innocent bystanders, a LOT of the carjackings/muggings/robbings stopped......almost immediately.

[ksdaddy]

Amazing, isn't it?

[milod]

Gee Bender...

 

You'd have thought that another couple of gun control laws would have helped. <chortle>

 

m

[Bender 4 Life]

Gee Bender...

 

You'd have thought that another couple of gun control laws would have helped. <chortle>

 

m

 

not ME !! (I DO know sarchasm when I read it though)

 

even stranger......when we adopted "open carry" 6/13......things became even MORE peaceful here, even though i've yet to see anybody carrying openly.

(having lived in the South i'm sure you remember that many Southerners pride themselves in having good manners, of which in my area O/C is NOT considered a trait of.)

 

to quote KSD....."amazing, isn't it?"

[badbluesplayer]

Secession hasn't happened yet. It sounds great until you realize that you're not going to be an American and some guy armed with a bucket of poop can take you over.

 

Guns are great, but in today's world, the people who think private militias are the ticket to security are not the same people who are equipped to run a country. It's an entirely different bunch.

 

[milod]

It's not a matter of armed militias - although in some parts of the country it seems there's sufficient government-allowed anarchy to suggest that one may not be an entirely bad idea.

 

I hear Bender's comment too that "open carry" may be legal, but that in most cases (excluding to and from hunting or target shooting) it's likely considered to be less than what one might expect from a lady or gentleman. Although I know one lady member of the state legislature who carried a sidearm openly (it's more comfortable that way usually) after she discovered she was being stalked by a mountain lion on her family ranch.

 

The mere fact of a law reiterating the old common law principle of defense of one's person and property and that of others, along with a concealed carry law, have been shown to lessen quite a bit of crime regardless that anyone actually carries.

 

Soft targets always have been the major aim of bully-type bad guys. When the 65-year-old lady might have a .38 in her purse, she may not appear to be quite such a soft target. Not, of course, that I might know any ladies who might fit that description.

 

m

[darling67]

succession didn't work for MY town in 1861......probably won't work for yours either.

 

 

[darling67]

 

… the people who think private militias are the ticket to security are not the same people who are equipped to run a country. It's an entirely different bunch.

 

 

 

People are so fearful of the government becoming tyrannical that they turn around and become the seeds of tyranny themselves. Last thing anyone needs are a bunch of self-appointed armed yahoos—a not-so-well-regulated militia(!)—who see themselves as "protectors" of the people. Yeah... welcome to "Third World America"! I'd feel less safe and secure with that element around.

 

We don't need militias in this country—private or otherwise. We already have an army and an army National Guard, thanks. Done.

[milod]

Actually what folks don't realize is that functionally many, if not most U.S. states do recognize "militia" and as other than the National Guard which functionally is an arm of the U.S. government, simply handled a bit differently than the "reserve" elements of the armed forces.

 

Even beyond that, again in most states I'm aware of at least, in theory a law enforcement officer can "deputize" other civilians (police, sheriffs' deputies, state law enforcement are still "civilians," by the way) for armed action.

 

I'm not suggesting any value judgment there, simply noting the law. There is an unwritten assumption in my own state as the militia section was written into the state constitution that males of the age noted, would have their own arms as good citizens. As one might note, that remains regardless of legislative challenge.

 

I could quote it chapter and verse if you wish, but it's all male citizens age 18 through 45.

 

Note too, however, we're not talking about fringe political/religious groups acting without warrant, regardless of how "politics" may have played games with word meanings.

 

I might add that I have a copy of an ancestor's commission and discharge as captain in the Vermont Militia shortly after 1800.

 

The value of "militia" is that of a rapidly gathered force to respond to major crisis situations. My state constitution retains the factor of how officers might be commissioned, for example. In case of disaster, it offers a means for rapid formalizing of organization of rescue and recovery efforts, etc. Or, in case of other needs to protect the citizenry.

 

When the British government passed a number of measures to disarm colonials in America some centuries ago, it's ironic that the Massachusetts legislative body of the time passed legislation enabling the arming of men - without noting per se for a formal militia structure. Nowadays the Massachusetts state government seems more likely to confiscate a Brown Bess than recognize it for its history.

 

I might add, and to borrow a concept from Gen. George Patton, in its time the Brown Bess was the finest battle implement ever devised. It remains as lethal as most, and more than many current military arms, let alone civilian. That was what the British government sought to confiscate, btw, out of fear that an armed citizenry might endanger military control of their region when desired. It's been debated for ages that had not the British sought to disarm the colonials, whether there might have been a revolution at all.

 

Questions whether trained soldiers are themselves "better" necessarily than anyone else when in confrontation with their own citizenry was answered well enough in Boston on March 5, 1770. Those red-coated troops had courage and discipline to walk into a withering fire from opposition forces - but lost that discipline in the face of a civilian mob. A later-to-be U.S. President defended them in court - blaming to a large extent the commanders who sent them to control with arms their fellow citizens.

 

I'd suggest that current Massachusetts politics are certainly more "tory" than "whig" by terms in use in 1770.

 

m

[L8_4thesh0w]

What gun control advocates fail to see is that the protections they

rely on such as local law enforcement, emergency responders and

the like will be the primary objective of the first wave in an incursion.

[badbluesplayer]

Man, Caribou is wayyyy up there. Right near the end of Route 1 - cool! No wonder 20 guys with no plan can make waves. They're like "Why should an old retired farmer pay for park benches for city folk?" I'm like, "Because some retired city type guy on a park bench paid for your schooling and the highway in front of your farm that takes your stuff to market, even though it wasn't easy for him either. You require more highway per tax dollar paid than city folk. How'd you like to maintain your own five miles of highway four times a year? How's your road grader working? How's your quarry and asphalt plant working?"

 

I'd say do the "Grandkids test." Line up 100 grandkids and put 20 secessionist curmudgeons on one side and put 20 normal grandparents on the other side and see which way all the kids run. Then you know where the future lies.

[milod]

For one thing, most farmers and ranchers pay far, far more local taxes than most "town" or "city" folk. In my state their homes are taxed by school and county at roughly the same level as homes in town/city, and then their land that is their own "factory" is taxed as well.

 

Then they also pay taxes on equipment to do their farming and ranching as well as taxes when they sell their grain or livestock, directly or indirectly. They each probably contribute far more to schools and roads than all but a few businesses in town.

 

Also, around here the "curmudgeons" have the ponies for kids to ride and the fresh air and countryside for kids to be free. Basically the town kids would tend to head toward those folks rather than the town folks.

 

Your betting money may be different elsewhere, but I'd suggest that the economics of running a surviving family farm or ranch over a few generations is even more difficult than running small town "ma and pa" businesses that usually pay far, far less tax.

 

It's not really a joke that because of taxes, the successful farmer or rancher in today's world is the one whose wife's job in town pays best. The only real money in the biz is if they sell the land to developers or wealthy city folk who want to turn it into something of a private resort rather than a working agricultural enterprise.

 

I've frequently joked - and the farm wives laugh as hard as anyone - that the only way a family farmer or rancher can make money today is through polygamy. There's no way anybody can do well with only one wife working in town.

 

m

[badbluesplayer]

For one thing, most farmers and ranchers pay far, far more local taxes than most "town" or "city" folk. In my state their homes are taxed by school and county at roughly the same level as homes in town/city, and then their land that is their own "factory" is taxed as well.

 

Then they also pay taxes on equipment to do their farming and ranching as well as taxes when they sell their grain or livestock, directly or indirectly. They each probably contribute far more to schools and roads than all but a few businesses in town.

 

Also, around here the "curmudgeons" have the ponies for kids to ride and the fresh air and countryside for kids to be free. Basically the town kids would tend to head toward those folks rather than the town folks.

 

Your betting money may be different elsewhere, but I'd suggest that the economics of running a surviving family farm or ranch over a few generations is even more difficult than running small town "ma and pa" businesses that usually pay far, far less tax.

 

It's not really a joke that because of taxes, the successful farmer or rancher in today's world is the one whose wife's job in town pays best. The only real money in the biz is if they sell the land to developers or wealthy city folk who want to turn it into something of a private resort rather than a working agricultural enterprise.

 

I've frequently joked - and the farm wives laugh as hard as anyone - that the only way a family farmer or rancher can make money today is through polygamy. There's no way anybody can do well with only one wife working in town.

 

m

 

Agreed about the tax load. Not to mention what happens when they pass away and the kids have to come up with the taxes.

[badbluesplayer]

I hope they have a land surveyor in the group. You can't have much of a country without your George Washington and Abe Lincoln types.

[rct]

America. Where somehow, every day, somewhere, somebody else pays more taxes than everybody else. It's amazing.

 

I'm fairly certain that somehow, to somebody, these guys have no idea what they are talking about:

 

•In 2011, the residents of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut had the highest state-local tax burdens as a share of income in the nation. In these states, residents have forgone over 11.9 percent of income due to state and local taxes.

•Residents of Wyoming paid the lowest percentage of income in 2011 at just 6.9 percent. They replaced Alaska, which had previously been the least-taxed for multiple decades, as the lowest-burdened state in the nation. After Wyoming and Alaska, the next lowest-taxed states were South Dakota, Texas, and Louisiana.

 

 

rct

[fortyearspickn]

Some pressure on local governments here around San Antonio due to rapid population growth. New houses and apartment complexes going up everywhere, while the infra-structure can't keep up due to the lead time required to tax long time residents today for more schools, roads, police, fire, etc. Politicians have brought forward plans to tax the builders of new residences so money can be available sooner, but more importantly, come from those making the most money on the growth. Developers and custom home builders went ballistic, of course. I hope the politicians stand their ground. It is extremely irritating when your commute time to work goes from 30 minutes to 60, because developers from other states have built thousands of homes and apartment complexes along your route.

[milod]

RCT...

 

Actually those tax figures are pretty much accepted nationwide.

 

In fact, in my state they're often used by the minority party - Democrats - as a reason why taxes should be raised regardless that Standard and Poor just upped the state's credit rating and promises to raise it again with current policies in place.

 

There are some concerns from low tax rates to be sure. One is that teacher unions are concerned about relatively low wages - which tend to be well above average incomes regardless - and losses of teachers to other states. But then, the state's rate of "highly qualified" teachers remains among the highest, and graduation rates among the highest, regardless of being panned by teacher unions. Some states rate much higher because of higher teacher pay - but with far lower high school graduation rates. Most here feel the proof of the pudding is in the tasting.

 

There's also a property tax "freeze" to 3 percent increases of assessed valuation although that assessed value may raise taxes significantly more. No income tax. Relatively low sales taxes although they cover just about everything and - as elsewhere - are considered "regressive" by the left, although they've pretty well given up on that argument.

 

The low tax rate also contributes to increases in employment and a low unemployment rate regardless that large "Indian Reservations" have relatively large unemployment rates due to some cultural factors.

 

Corporate entities have a number of questions to answer in considering moves from high tax to low tax states. That's one reason for Texas growth. A reason more hasn't happened is the economy of location. Then again, high U.S. corporate tax rates have been cited for most "offshoring" of one sort or another.

 

Yet even that isn't the whole story. The U.S. lost much of its European ag market when the "Iron Curtain" fell and there were political as well as economic reasons to purchase grain from Eastern Europe. And South American beef is less expensive than U.S. beef due to lower costs overall there.

 

Things aren't usually so simple when one discusses tax rates, business growth and employment rates, business migration, etc.

 

m

[Bender 4 Life]

i've read in our local news that there is now a push (backed by some high level politicians) to allow open carry in polling (voting) places that aren't either a court-house or other official building.......

 

now, i'm fairly conservative and pro 2nd ammendment.....but can we PLEASE have a reality check here? OPEN....CARRY.....WHERE WE VOTE??? This just doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

 

even our State Attorney General has "flip flopped" and now states he's leaning toward allowing it.....our State Sheriffs Association is against it.....

I'll have to side w/the Sheriffs Assn. on this one.

 

I can see this ending very badly if it's passed........

[milod]

Bender...

 

I think a lot of things along these lines have to do with local culture.

 

And a lotta stuff has changed, too.

 

For example, where I live, you seldom if ever nowadays see a rifle rack in a pickup. Then again, most of the ranch pickups especially are four-door outfits where a cased rifle is a less likely target for city passers-by to steal.

 

On the other hand, the courthouse has signs saying "weapons," guns and knives, are not allowed. But if you look at the males and even about a third of the jeans-clad females, you'll see a clip in right front pockets holding rather large pocket knives - and no problem. They're not "weapons," as seen around here, they're "tools.'

 

A cupla years ago I was doing a piece on a first person living historian up in Deadwood. We'd known each other a bit beforehand, so we decided I'd wear a mid-late 1870s US Army uniform. No problem with my period-style revolver, but "Go ahead and leave the saber at home - that might scare some people." Oddly the saber without the revolver would be more likely in '76-78 in Deadwood for an officer, but folks are used to living history folks with revolvers there.

 

As I said, it's largely a matter of local culture.

 

I will admit I'd wonder about folks going to vote with a shotgun or rifle slung on a shoulder, although I'm certain a few folks with concealed carry permits likely were carrying concealed at local polls. Just the ladies carrying purses seems clumsy enough using the types of polling booths used around here, let alone having to mess with a shoulder arm. But definitely some farmers/ranchers will have arms of various sorts in their pickups, but not brought into polling places. No reason to. For those folks, the firearm is just another tool to carry.

 

m