LTE: Asheville District Elections

Letter: District elections offer chance to spread leadership

Dear Editor,

A common complaint from the establishment left is that district elections is a matter that should be left to the people of Asheville to decide in a referendum. (Although this could have been done before under §160A, Article 5.)

But it seems the progressive ruling elite has only lately come to the idea of popular consent prior to taking actions. This was certainly the case in its attempt to annex Biltmore Lake to the benefit of its General Fund.

The self-sufficient residents of Biltmore Lake were resolutely opposed being forcibly annexed. They needed none of the city's services. Asheville took no vote on the matter yet the annexation proceeded—against the wishes of "the people". The residents then sued Asheville, at their own expense, and it took legislation from Raleigh to de-annex the properties of Biltmore Lake.

With district elections, we have an opportunity to spread leadership across the expanding reaches of a growing city. Asheville has exhibited a recalcitrant frame of mind in sharing power and this is offensive to justice. It will once again take legislation from Raleigh to give "the people" what they deserve. This time in the form of greater representative democracy in electing its leaders.


Tim Peck, Asheville

---

RELATED

Asheville District Elections Map (showing current council members)
http://timpeck.blogspot.com/2016/06/asheville-district-elections-map.html

Asheville District Elections Timeline
http://timpeck.blogspot.com/2016/06/district-elections-timeline.html

Asheville District Elections in Redistricting Committee
http://timpeck.blogspot.com/2016/06/district-elections-in-committee.html

Asheville District Elections in Elections Committee
http://timpeck.blogspot.com/2016/06/house-elections-committee-asheville.html

Pete Kaliner on Asheville District Elections
http://timpeck.blogspot.com/2016/06/pete-kaliner-on-district-elections.html

LTE: Water Lawsuit

Time for city to end frivolous lawsuits
Asheville Citizen-Times | October 8, 2015

The City of Asheville has lost its lawsuit over management of the water system.

Asheville City Council’s expensive and unnecessary lawsuit has cost taxpayers close to a million dollars and taxpayers are paying for both sides of the dispute. The mayor has promised the city will appeal. Enough.

The law is clear. It is time for City Council to stop wasting taxpayer money on frivolous lawsuits. It is time for City Council to obey the law and loosen its grip on the people’s water system.

It’s time for all water system customers to be represented on a regional water authority.

Tim Peck, Asheville

---

FURTHER READING

Asheville legal bills in water case top $550,000. That's how much was spent BEFORE the appeal. It's closer to $1M at this point. That's not counting the $57 million lost by rejecting the compensation offer by MSD.
http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2014/11/01/asheville-legal-bills-water-case-top/18350277/

Yes, the city was offered $57M for the water system by MSD. That was a discounted value taking into account the money the city had already stolen from the system. They turned down the offer of compensation because they thought it wasn't enough. Now they have lost the water system AND the $57 million.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/141200057/MSD-Compensation-Offer

The mayor is already promising to spend gobs of taxpayer money to continue fighting a losing battle.
https://twitter.com/EstherManheimer/status/651412919373156352

An appeal by the City of a unanimous decision, citing SCOTUS, will only delay the inevitable by perhaps a few months. There was no dissent and, therefore, no basis for the state Supreme Court to hear an appeal. If the city does file cert as promised, it is likely to be summarily thrown out. I'd like to have a little chat with the mayor right about then.In the end, the city will turn over the water system to the people who use and depend on it.
https://twitter.com/ChuckMcGrady/status/476195246943264769

This is the THIRD time the City of Asheville has lost in court over the water system.
1. Candler v. Asheville (1958). Status: Lost
http://bit.ly/1NnG8lp
2. Asheville v. State (2007). Status: Lost
http://bit.ly/1Ll0Ifv
3. Asheville v. State (2013). Status: Lost
http://bit.ly/1Q5E1jK

In 2012, Senator Nesbitt (D) commented on the futility of the water fight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=3915&v=6z_uDm4h-yY

The Water System in Blog Posts:
http://timpeck.blogspot.com/search/label/water%20system

The Regionalization of Public Utilities: An idea whose time has come . . . again.
http://nchouse117.com/water-bill/

MSD Merger Study, March 20, 2013
http://www.msdbc.org/documents/waterstudy/final/FinalMergerStudy032013.pdf

LTE: Education Cuts

Dear Editor
Asheville Daily Planet

Here we go again with the parade of lies on the campaign trail. First from Senator Kay Hagan and now from Brian Turner, Representative TimMoffitt's opponent in his re-election bid from District 116. They both have said in campaign ads that the North Carolina General Assembly "cut $500 million from public education."

That's simply untrue. The Washington Post knows it. They gave that canard two “Pinocchios.” FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com know it. They flat out debunked the oft-repeated falsehood on their websites too. Even WLOS-TV has finally had enough. They recently broadcast a story that set the record straight. In his report, anchor Frank Fraboni said, “For viewers and voters, the deception is disturbing.” (http://goo.gl/GqRAfw)

SarahCurry of the John Locke Foundation pulled the relevant numbers from the state Fiscal Research Division and determined that the legislature actually increased spending on public education this year by $302 million*. In fact, over the last four years, education spending increased by nearly a billion dollars. What's more, in the final two years of Democrat control, $610 million were cut from public education.

So, there you have it: the current General Assembly did NOT "cut $500 million from public education."

TIM PECK
ASHEVILLE

---

RELATED

The Pete Kaliner Show, Oct 2, 5:0p, "$500 million lie."

LTE: Water Merger

Regional authority needed for accountability to users

Dear Editor,

I recently read that Asheville city council is gearing up for another rate increase for water customers in the region (“Asheville considering water rate increases,” March 25, 2014). But some water customers don't live in Asheville. Roughly half of these regional water system customers live in Buncombe County, outside the city. And yet, it is seven people sitting on city council who are in charge of water system policy for the region and they alone are making important decisions which will affect many people who are not their constituents.

If customers outside the city were to have input regarding unreasonable rates, poor service or quality, or matters of future development, where would they turn? They are without representation on Asheville's city council and could not express their point of view by voting in city elections.

To ensure accountability to all water system ratepayers, we need broader representation by a locally-appointed board in a regional authority. It is long past time that these disenfranchised customers outside the city were given a seat at the table and a sure way to voice their concerns to their appointed representative.

TIM PECK
ASHEVILLE

LTE: Water Merger

Two takes from readers on city-state relations
Tim Peck | Asheville Citizen-Times | 1/13/2013

House Bill 552, sponsored by Representative Tim Moffitt and signed into law by Governor Perdue on June 28, 2012, directed the City of Asheville to turn over title to certain WNC Ag Center properties. To this date, the city has not complied with this directive and instead contemplates action that would control the conduct of gun shows on those same properties.

In April of 2012, the General Assembly's Legislative Research Committee directed the City of Asheville to effect a merger of their water department with the county's sewerage system into a reorganized, locally-operated regional water authority that would continue the mission of serving water and sewer customers on a wider scale with greater efficiencies and fairer representation. Instead, they have held an irrelevant and insular referendum, passed antagonistic resolutions, voted down reasonable proposals by MSD, conducted propaganda forums and coordinated oppositional activism, all aimed at thwarting the good faith process called for by the committee.

As with the Ag Center, the city has shown every sign of repeating a pattern of stubborn recalcitrance with the water merger and I urge the General Assembly to take full control of this matter and expedite the merger without compensation at its earliest availability.

TIM PECK
ASHEVILLE

---

RELATED

GREATER ASHEVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY ACT.
"SECTION 2.2.(a) The City of Asheville shall convey to the State of North Carolina by warranty or quitclaim deed all its right, title, and interest to the 'City of Asheville Parcel' below, which is part of the Western North Carolina Agricultural Center, and the corporate limits of the City of Asheville are reduced by removing all three parcels below from the corporate limits.."

LTE: Bothwell, Water

Shrinking Asheville? It’s run by Dim and Dimmer
by Tim Peck
Asheville Daily Planet | October 2012

City council member Cecil Bothwell offers us a helpful window into the thinking of local government in his recent commentary ("The Incredible Shrinking City", Sep 2012) where he bemoans the fact that Asheville is legally prohibited from charging county residents more for water service than citizens of Asheville. His complaint centers on the consequence of this law which he says is "removing a huge incentive for voluntary annexation."

The only way I see that water rates could be an incentive to county customers is if those rates could be somehow manipulated to the disadvantage of those customers. In other words, the city could have an interest in rates artificially raised to the point where county customers have a disincentive to remain outside the loving arms of Asheville.

I say "artificially" because the desired rate hikes would presumably then be lowered immediately upon submitting to voluntary municipal annexation and the subsequent city taxes, ordinances and land-use regulations that annexation imposes on the newly abosrbed citizens. This, of course, counters any notion that higher rates simply reflect the higher cost of serving county customers that are farther away. Besides, the county is where the water comes from in the first place.

This arrangement would be about as voluntary as when the mobster warns the shopkeeper to pay protection money and when the shopkeeper asks, "Protection from who?" the mobster answers, "From us."

Yes, Asheville is a shrinking city. With the Sullivan Acts, new democratic barriers to forced annexation, a newly-independent airport authority, a pending regional water system merger, the repeal of some recent questionable annexations, and with businesses, students and residents moving out and half of city workers now living out of town, Asheville, and specifically its tax base, is shrinking and will continue to shrink. Couple that with the city thumbing its nose at Raleigh with an irrelevant water referendum and Asheville's future looks like it's being run by Dim and Dimmer.

The only question remaining is, if Asheville insists on dreaming beyond its means, what mechanism with she now resort to for skimming revenues from the unwilling?

TIM PECK
Asheville

LTE: Profit

People and Profits Are In Harmony
Mountain Xpress | 3/7/2012

In today's headlines and protest signs we hear pleas to "put people ahead of profits." But are people and profits opposed to one another? In commercial transactions, two parties profit: the seller and the buyer. The buyer acquires a product and the seller gains financially. This peaceable, voluntary transaction of value for value to mutual benefit is an exercise of the rights of individuals to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. It is the proper and moral exercise of economic and political freedom.

When a person offers to mow your lawn for payment, he seeks to profit financially from his labor for his own betterment as he sees it. The same principle holds on larger scales. When Steve Jobs invents and sells an iPhone, Apple Corporation profits. And so do you. Profits motivate individuals to improve the lives of others and the prospect of making a profit is what makes any business enterprise worthwhile.

In a free market, a business profits to the extent that it pleases people by improving their lives. When it does not, it properly loses its profits and is replaced by competitors who stand to do a better job of pleasing people and, therefore, of making a profit. Profit is what people willingly give to businesses in exchange for the improvement of their lives in material ways. Profit is the measure of successfully serving the needs and wants of the community in a free, voluntary marketplace. It is the people who rule in a free economy. Consumers vote in the marketplace with their dollars and they are ruthless in their choices. They ultimately determine who will earn a profit and succeed and who will rack up loses and suffer defeat. In this sense, people and profits are in harmony and are not opposing concepts.

---

RELATED

Why Is Creating Value Good, Profits Bad?
By Paul Hsieh
"Profit" is a dirty word. Profit-seeking businessmen are stock villains in Hollywood movies. "Occupy Wall Street" protestors demand, "People not profits" (whatever that means). Companies reporting healthy profits are automatically assumed to be exploiting customers and can only atone for this by "giving back" to their communities. "Making a profit" has an unsavory, morally suspect taint.

LTE: New Tribune Editor

As a long-time local libertarian activist, I was happy to hear about the changes in the editorial staff at the Asheville Tribune (“Who is Clint Parker,” November 10, 2011). I remember, not so long ago, when the paper's editor was Bill Fishburne, a religious conservative who took every opportunity to deride libertarians and their political principles of individual rights, limited government and free markets. Then the Tribune installed John North, an outspoken Austrian-school economist, with his articles on the Federal Reserve central banking cartel, fiat currency debasement and Constitutional politician Ron Paul. Now, the new editor is a self-described “Constitutional libertarian," who promises us a series on individual rights. My, how times have changed.

LTE: Occupy Wall Street

Occupy Wall Street protests are misguided
Asheville Mountain Xpress
October 26, 2011

Dear Editor,

Capitalism is morally good. It also happens to work remarkably well, raising millions around the world out of poverty and providing the marketplace with a myriad of life-enhancing material goods. This social system of economic and political freedom is the only one that fully recognizes, respect and protects individual rights. It is a system that we do not have in this country and have never had. We have had only greater or lesser degrees of economic freedom. We were the closest to capitalism during the inventive period of the late 19th Century, when most of the great innovations and conveniences we live with today were invented (phones, cameras, lighting, cars, appliances, etc.). Today, entreprenuers, like tech visionary Steve Jobs struggle, to provide society with innovations that give individuals more power over their lives.

Our current crisis is the result of government intervention in the marketplace through regulation, taxation, welfare, economic incentives, bailouts, central banking, fiat currency and rank cronyism. We live in a mixed economy. It is a mix of some capitalism and some socialism; some freedom and some political control. Half good and half bad equates to bad. And what we have today is bad. Businessmen, lobbyists and special interest groups are buying politicians because politicians are for sale. When you first hang up a shingle, buyers soon appear and compete for favors, handouts and bailouts, all at the expense of the rest of society.

The “Occupy Wall Street” protests are misguided by focusing on only one half of the equation. You cannot cure a disease with a misdiagnosis. Those angry protestors in New York and Asheville have misdiagnosed the problems they accurately perceive and would be better served by properly identifying the true source of their grievances: Government.

For an entertaining video on these points, visit econstories.com.

LTE: Food Trucks

Asheville Tribune Executive Editor David Morgan argues ("Downtown Asheville without restaurants?," 9/1/2011) against the operation of food trucks downtown because they might provide some competition to restaurants and this, in turn, he speculates, would lead to a ghost town.

He first states that it is the government's role to "make the rules for free market competition reasonably equal and fair." He is right. To wit: government should not interfere in economic activity and should allow the greatest possible economic freedom between entrepreneurs and consumers, trading value for value to mutual benefit. But then Mr. Morgan puzzles us when he states that in allowing food trucks to operate downtown, local government is, by doing so, "picking one kind of business that they like or favor;” namely, food trucks.

Yet, Mr. Morgan would have government actively shield restauranteurs from food truck competition. As if Mr. Morgan is advocating that government ought to pick one kind of business that they like or favor; namely, restaurants. This is a contradiction. Mr. Morgan establishes a sound principle and then proceeds to violate it.

It would appear that Mr. Morgan is confused about the proper role of government as well as the rights of business people and their customers. One, food truck operators have a right to conduct a business that does not violate the rights of others. Two, consumers have a right to select from an array of food offerings without the interference of government or newspaper editors. Also, it is not the government's proper role to protect businesses from competition. On the contrary, it is the government's proper role to allow for maximum competition in a free market.

In using the force of government to protect one business over another – restaurants -- it is Mr. Morgan who would use government to violate individual rights and, therefore, turn Asheville into a ghost town by dictating economic activity to free adults.

RELATED

David Morgan's lame-ass response:
Asheville Tribune LTE

LTE: Bothwell and Rand

Bothwell’s opposition to ideas of Ayn Rand termed off-base
Asheville Tribune | April 7

Dear Editor,

I was confused, but not surprised, to read in your paper (“Bothwell to seek Shuler seat”, March 31, 2011) that Congressional hopeful Cecil Bothwell "opposes the views of Ayn Rand." Mr. Bothwell's main disagreement with Rand centers on her advocacy of Individualism; where every person has the moral right to live for his own sake rather than an unearned obligation to live for others. In countering Rand, Mr. Bothwell says, "We are a cooperative species. No one can make it alone. We're completely interdependent."

And yet, this is precisely what Rand supports: "Cooperation is the free association of men who work together by voluntary agreement, each deriving from it his own personal benefit." Interdependent cooperation is only possible so far as those doing the cooperating respect each others individual rights to life, liberty and property. And no group has any rights beyond the individual rights of the members composing it.

Rand states that, "any group that does not recognize this principle [of Individualism] is not an association, but a gang or a mob." Is it the gang or the mob that Mr. Bothwell prefers over Ayn Rand's rights-respecting cooperation of individuals, each properly living for his own sake and pursuing values in his own self-interest? I'm confused.

TIM PECK
ASHEVILLE

---

RELATED

Individualism in America

LTE: Equality Resolution

Letter to the Editor
Asheville Tribune | March 17, 2011

Dear Editor,

Contrary to the editorial position of the conservative Asheville Tribune, imposing a Christian version of Sharia law on free Americans in a pluralistic society is thrice-times wrong.

Marital union is a voluntary, peaceable and rightful contract between free adults; often involving property, reputations, assets and even children. Just as in any promissory contract, it is the proper role of the government to adjudicate contestable disputes should they arise. Sadly, our gay citizens are prohibited by law from entering into these romantic contracts. This is a violation of individual rights and a proper government should stand against these prohibitions; as the Equality Resolution does.

In the state of North Carolina, heterosexual couples can legally marry. This qualifies them for certain privileges and legal recognition. Homosexual couples are immorally prevented by the government from getting married, according to the dictates of their best judgment. This is a violation of individual rights. To compensate for this objective injustice, the City, among other things, will create a registry of gay couples, who are forced to remain single, that meets certain criteria for a civil union in the event that institutions are inclined to recognize and respect their rights. Were gays able to exercise their natural born right to marriage, none of this would be necessary.

To cavalierly suggest, as the Tribune does, that gay men are free to marry lesbian women, or vice versa, is an appeal to illogic and oppression. It is like saying that you are free to practice religion so long it is the religion of Islam. Whoever agrees to the one, must agree to the other.

TIM PECK
ASHEVILLE

---

RELATED

Asheville council errs with OK of gay rights intrusion
Editorial | Asheville Tribune | March 10, 2011
It was disappointing, but certainly not surprising, that Asheville City Council voted 5-1 on Feb. 22 in support of equal rights for same sex partnerships.

Letter to the Asheville Daily Planet
Tim Peck | March 2011
Equality resolution OK praised; mayor lambasted

Letter to the Asheville Tribune
Tim Peck | March 3, 2011
Equality resolution approval praised, but mayor lambasted.

LTE: Montford House

Reclaim legislative authority at the local level
by Tim Peck | Mountain Xpress | 12/07/2010

Dear Editor,

In your article about a Montford homeowner under attack by the city for having “too many people” (Sustainable For Whom, 11/16/2010), Assistant Planning Director Shannon Tuch says, “This is all based on life-safety requirements. When you have eight related people living in a house, there's a head of household...who would act...in the family's best interest to get everybody out. When you have eight unrelated people, it's pretty much every man for himself."

Ms. Tuch's assertion that a head-of-household is more likely to act in his self interest than eight unrelated occupants is simply unfounded. I'm sure Ms. Tuch excels at her government job, but she's a dull sociologist.

Recently, a small fire broke out at Bernard Carman's home—for the first time since taking ownership 22 years ago—inside someone's locked and vacated room. The smell of smoke was detected in minutes by several housemates. Acting quickly and in a coordinated effort, a resident climbed a ladder, entered the window and doused a burning blanket moments from flaming. The house was saved and without fire damage. Four unrelated people acting together effectively mitigated a serious life-safety incident.

I suspect Ms. Tuch is not so interested in the life-safety issues of eight unrelated people living in a spacious and secure home. What she does though is provide a pretext for enforcing North Carolina housing code which precisely defines who can live where in Asheville. A simple inspection of the historic home would satisfy any observer that this residence is adequate, safe and well-maintained.

We need to reclaim legislative authority at the local level. We can determine for ourselves a whole range of civil issues without blanket interference from a distant legislature. The only thing standing in the way of justice in this and many other cases is the lack of home rule.

TIM PECK
ASHEVILLE

---

Background

Bernard Carman is a long-time homeowner in the city of Asheville and has been an active participant in local community affairs for over a decade.

Since 1988, he has owned and lived in a beautiful 3-story, 8-bedroom house in Asheville's Montford Historic District. During those 22 years He has improved the property and rented out rooms to tenants at below market rates, and so far He has not encountered a shortage of poor people to rent rooms to. This affordable housing is now under attack by a city that vigorously promotes affordable housing and even subsidizes it with tax breaks and other incentives.

The reason his home is under attack is that housing regulation mandates that single-family homes cannot be occupied by more than 5 unrelated people. And he is prohibited by zoning code from operating either a boardinghouse or a bed-and-breakfast homestay. The choices he's been given are to either summarily evict 3 people or upgrade the home with expensive safety equipment.

Evicting 3 renters would cost him the lost revenue of about $18,000 a year. He would have to make up the difference himself or significantly raising the rent on the remaining tenants. Absorbing the cost himself would bankrupt him and risk foreclosure on his 22-year investment. Raising rent would mean that 5 renters would be paying for 3 empty rooms and this would certainly put the property outside the definition of affordable housing.

If he decides to continue renting to more than 5 unrelated people, then instead of being subject to residential housing code his home would be subject to commercial code. This would require that an elaborate sprinkler systems be installed, which he estimates would cost around $30,000.

In any case, as long as his property is in violation of housing regulations he is subject to fines of $100 per day until he can prove that it is fully in compliance one way or another. Neither evicting tenants nor installing safety equipment can be done quickly and he has have spent three months so far communicating with city staff on the specifics of my case and seeking remedies as well as exploring and weighing my options for compliance and he could be facing $9,000 worth of fines as of today.

For 22 years he has paid his taxes, improved the neighborhood, increased property values and offered affordable housing to the community. He has harmed no one else and has not risked the safety or well-being of his friends.

Meanwhile, the City of Asheville is combating homelessness and poverty and is offering developers taxpayer-funded subsidies, tax breaks and economic incentives in exchange for building affordable housing in our city.

This is how the City of Asheville is both promoting and destroying affordable housing at the same time.

Home Rule

Any one visiting Bernard's home would find that it is spacious, accommodating, well kept and safe, with modern fixtures, appointments and appliances. There are fire escapes to the top story and fire extinguishers on every floor. The people that live there are friendly and mature and they get along well and look out for each other.

If city staff or a fire marshal were to inspect the property for themselves, this is what they would find. But they would not be able to consult their own judgment and declare the home to be safe, quiet, orderly and no threat to the neighborhood or its occupants.

But North Carolina is not a home rule state and the city must defer to state law in these matters. Legislators in Raleigh determine who can live where in Asheville. The city is only allowed to make housing regulation more restrictive but not less. If we had home rule, lawmakers in Asheville could resolve these problems on a case-by-case basis and, if that were so, I believe Bernard would be allowed to continue offering affordable housing to poor people in Asheville.

Taking

1. In Montford, you have two homes next to each other that are very similar in design and structure. The neighbor's property is worth a lot more than Bernard's. Why should Bernard's property be worth substantially less than his neighbor's? The neighbor's property is a Bed and Breakfast. A Bed and Breakfast is going to be worth more than a single-family home because it's been renovated and developed to be commercial income-producing property. Running a Bed and Breakfast is something Bernard has considered in the past. But Bernard cannot convert his single-family home into a Bed and Breakfast because of a zoning ordinance that prohibits two Bed and Breakfast Homestays from being next to each other. According to the Unified Development Ordinance, no two B&B's can be closer than 500 feet from each other. So, while the neighbor can operate a B&B, Bernard cannot. That constitutes a government taking without compensation.

2. Bernard's home was built 100 yeas ago to be an 8-bedroom house. Since Bernard bought the home 22 years ago, it has been housing 8 people in those 8 bedrooms. Along comes a law that prohibits Bernard from housing 8 people. The law says that Bernard can only have 5 people residing in his home. Now he cannot use 3 bedrooms as they were intended and must essentially keep them empty and unused. The house came first, then a law was established that denied Bernard the full use of his property as he saw fit and in a way that harmed no one else. That constitutes a government taking without compensation.

RELATED

Do North Carolina Local Governments Need Home Rule?
Frayda Bluestein |UNC School of Government | Fall 2006
North Carolina local governments are created by the state and derive all their powers by delegation from it.

LTE: Glenn Beck

Dear Editor, Asheville Tribune,

In its recent editorial critical of large-scale conservative protests in Washington, D.C., UNCA's sophomoric Blue Banner newspaper relays its received Progressive talking-points and proceeds to conflate Glenn Beck's well-attended religious tent revivals and the populist national Tea Party Movement in an attempt to discredit them both with a searing swipe. And yet fails for these very good reasons:

First, by descending into 'ad hominem' personal attacks, the Banner reveals the absence of a valid counter-argument within the points it thinks it is making. Inflammatory slurs like "lunatic" and "snakes" reveal little in the way of facts and logic, but a great deal about the pettiness of hostile ideological bias in local media. Let us just say it is unpersuasive.

Second, the Banner simply invents ill motives for both phenomena and directly resorts to a well-worn approach in political debate: smear your opponents with manufactured intrigue. By mischaracterizing the nature of Beck's event as "equating the rich white American's economic and spiritual struggle to the civil rights movement," the Banner creates a straw-man which it would then strike down with unfortunate and snippy rhetorical flourishes. Mixing in a little birther-mania for good measure.

To be sure, Glenn Beck is a maudlin, self-aggrandizing theocratic sentimentalist with more persona and poignant pauses than compelling analytical substance. But Beck certainly has both the legal right and the moral sanction to host a quasi-political rally at the Lincoln Memorial; even after the fashion of King in his heyday. It seems Beck is experiencing a bit of a brush with popularity these days. He appeals to a certain bent in the political marketplace. And from which I'm sure he'll profit. I don't begrudge him that. We need bread and circuses.

The Tea Party Movement, on the other hand, is an independent, decentralized, nonpartisan, grassroots political issues-oriented community that stands against the out-of-control growth of government power, scope, arrogance, recklessness and corruption and stands for restoring the supremacy of individual rights in American society; for re-establishing an objective rule of law under a constitutionally-limited and accountable government; for fiscal responsibility that does not privatize profits and socialize losses; and for the full realization of an economy that is free from government interference and political controls. This fact the Banner is loathe to acknowledge -- even after two years. Fonder are the caricatures.

The Blue Banner seems now to decry populist movements of democratic political dissent and zealous religious revivalism; which were all the rage in the 60's when Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., marched on the same grounds that tea partiers and the reverent do now.

Remember those bumper stickers from the 60's? "Power to the People." "Dissent is Patriotic." A new breed is preaching those values. Disaffected America today is peeling back those bumper stickers from the hand-painted minivans of yesterday and is now pressing them onto their Suburbans and pickup trucks with the same passion and for the same reason. Right On!

TIM PECK, ASHEVILLE

###

RELATED

Tea Party Movement is a Revival of the Middle Class
By Tony Blankley | September 29, 2010
Ortega famously argued that a materialistic mass population had no self-restraint, only takes from its civilization -- in contrast to the elites who still sacrificed for the greater good. Lasch's point -- and mine -- is that roles are now reversed. It is the elites who are the materialists and the tea party/middle-class American who is prepared to sacrifice for our grandchildren's freedom and prosperity.

LTE: Gay Marriage Bans

TO: ASHEVILLE TRIBUNE

Dear Editor,

Our Founding Fathers hated democracy. So do I. Democracy is rule by public whimsy. Whereas the Founders envisioned for our nation a rule of objective law, not of fickle men. Under this vision, the protection of rights trumps the wishes of a mob, any mob, no matter their fallacious appeals to authority.

Thankfully, U.S. Federal Judge Vaughn Walker agreed with the Founders and me in his decision overturning California's proposed Constitutional ban on gay marriage. With his decision, free adults retain the right to enter into voluntary contracts on their own terms unmolested by their neighbors. And this is how it should be--for all of us.

If a majority voted to ban Christianity, should we respect the will of the people? I pray not.

TIM PECK
ASHEVILLE

---

RELATED

Where Do People Like This Come From?
Neal Boortz | August 10, 2010
Another letter-writer says that "Elected officials have the duty to vote the line of the majority of their constituents. This is the basis of representation by population in the Constitution." Sorry ... wrong.

Gay Marriage
Tim Peck | July 24, 2007
Some are using religion to justify discrimination against gays while others use religion to justify acceptance of gays. Both are wrong.

LTE: Shuler

Government should mostly stay out of health care reform
Tim Peck | Asheville Citizen-Times | February 11, 2010

I urge my representative in Washington, D.C., Congressman Heath Shuler, to persist in his opposition to socialized health care and continue to vote against it whenever it raises its head. Not because the health care reform proposal does too little or needs improvement, but because it's wrong; morally and practically. It's a public policy clunker and should be scrapped.

Instead, Rep. Shuler should support free market health care reforms -- such as establishing interstate insurance markets and promoting Health Savings Accounts. Why? Because it would be both good policy and good politics. According to CNN, 8 of 10 Americans are happy with their current health care, but are legitimately concerned about rising costs. Such reforms would address these concerns and preserve quality of care without coercing unwilling Americans into a costly government-run health care regime that would mandate individuals purchase health insurance as a condition of citizenship.

President Obama has recently implored Congress to move forward on health care, "even if it's difficult." That it is becoming difficult is precisely why it should fail. A health care reform failure would be a big win for Shuler -- and America.

TIM PECK
ASHEVILLE

LTE: Health Care

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
ASHEVILLE DAILY PLANET

A common but troubling argument encountered in the health care reform debate claims that, since we already pay for the cost of some people -- such as the unhealthy, the reckless or the irresponsible -- universal participation must be mandated in order to more fairly spread the cost burden across society, thereby reducing the individual burden.

But this argument is based on the false premise that we are each "our brother's keeper," that it is our duty to equally distribute and share suffering, and that governments are established to enforce that ethic.

The problem of society paying is only a problem when otherwise free markets become socialized, with their costs and risks guaranteed by public funds. Witness the auto and bank bailouts. Public funds are transfered by the government to private businesses to aid them in their struggle for solvency. Society then feels justified in dictating the terms of bailouts through their representatives in government. The average citizen is forced into becoming a silent partner in private enterprises in which they have no specialized knowledge or financial stake. The result of all of this is the establishment of an un-free market. This is the type of economy we have in America and it is unsustainable; as we have seen.

In a truly free market, health care costs are not involuntarily borne by society-at-large. They are borne by free individuals and voluntary associations such as private charities or insurance risk pools. The proper, rights-respecting way to reduce social costs is to remove state involvement in the private economy, thereby removing the involuntary, collectivized stake the whole of society has in private sector practices or outcomes.

In those areas of the economy where there is little or no regulation, such as Lasik surgery or computer technology, quality increases, prices go down and access multiplies. The way to accessible and affordable health care is through the prosperity, innovation and economic freedom that comes from a complete separation of economy and state.

Americans don't really have a problem accessing health care. They have a problem accessing the abundant high quality, low cost health care that an unhampered free market supplies.

The costs of health care are certainly on the rise. But this is due precisely to heavy government interference that causes aberrant economic behavior. The solution is not more interference but, instead, the establishment of a truly free market in health care over the hampered, quasi-free market that the health care industry has been laboring under.

Rather than try to solve a government-created problem with more crippling government-oriented solutions, I would advocate a few simple liberty-oriented solutions instead:

1. Remove legal obstacles to high-deductibility health insurance plans and Health Savings Accounts (HSA's).
2. Equalize the tax advantages between employer-provided health insurance and individually-owned health insurance. Tax incentives that favor employers also inhibit portability.
3. Regulate state laws preventing insurance competition across state lines. Making interstate commerce regular is an enumerated federal power; let's exercise it correctly, for once.
4. Repeal federal mandates prescribing the types of coverage that insurance companies may or may not offer to insurance consumers.
5. Reform tort law to limit lawsuits that cause physicians to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on insurance, litigation and defensive medical practices.
6. Reform the bankrupt Medicare system before contemplating new and greater political controls on a health care system already damaged by too many of them.
7. Revise tax forms to make it easier to make voluntary, tax-deductible donations to help those who have no insurance and are who are not covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

RELATED

Self-governance Works
John Stossel | October 28, 2009
Free people, given the chance, solve what many "experts" think are problems that require state intervention.

LTE: Robin Cape

How I learned to respect Robin Cape and why you should write her name on your ballot

by Tim Peck | Mountain Xpress | 10/14/2009

When Council member Robin Cape was elected four years ago, I was upset. I couldn't understand how Asheville could elect someone with her radical ideas about energy, the environment and a paternalistic model of government. At her swearing-in ceremony, I was reconciled to her election and said, "Maybe I can vote for you four years from now."

With that span of time now passed, I have changed and I could indeed vote for Robin Cape. But that is because Robin Cape has changed too. Coming from a background of progressive political activism, Cape has transformed into a seasoned, open-minded local legislator who well understands the mechanics of public advocacy, reasoned deliberation and the limitations of government action.

However, anyone wishing to cast a vote for Robin Cape must write her name on the ballot in November (just as they did in Woodfin in 2003, when Cape broke a 25-year precedent and won a seat on the water board as a write-in candidate with an impressive 34-percent voter turnout when she ran on the issue of protecting their precious watershed from logging).

State law allows for last-minute write-in candidates in a nonpartisan race.

Not so in the case of other local elections. Other elections are partisan and, as such, a write-in candidate must qualify by filing a "declaration of intent" with the Board of Elections 90 days prior to the general election, otherwise a write-in vote for that candidate is discarded as a non-vote. So, even though state statute says "each official ballot shall contain ... a means by which the voter may cast write‑in votes (N.C.G.S. 163‑165.5)," if a write-in candidate decides to participate after the 90-day cutoff for qualifying, no votes for that candidate will be counted. This appears to conflict with the spirit of the law.

Asheville's elections are nonpartisan; thanks to the Let Asheville Vote referendum that decided the question by the consent of a majority of citizens rather than by a majority vote of a biased seven-member City Council.

Ironically, Robin Cape originally opposed the Let Asheville Vote referendum. But she understands now the importance of protecting voters' rights and the right of citizens of any affiliation to run for public office.

I, too, have changed my mind from four years ago and will be writing the name "Robin Cape" on my ballot in 2009. May she win yet another write-in campaign.



RELATED

Write-In Robin Cape
Tim Peck | September 15, 2009

LTE: Public Option

Single-payer is still on table and more than an 'option'

Dear Editor,

In a recent AC-T editorial on the health care reform bill in Congress, ("Clearing up health debate confusion," Aug 11, 2009), the editor states that single-payer, as he puts it, "is not on the table."

The truth is that single-payer is indeed "on the table" so long as the public option is on the table. The "public option” is a one-way ticket to single-payer, government-run health care. It is designed to squeeze out private insurance providers and push insurance consumers into the government plan, leading to single-payer.

The President claims that the public option will keep private insurers honest. What it will in fact do is keep private insurers at a permanent disadvantage, leading to their extinction.

Single-payer means a government bureaucracy interfering in the private relationships between doctors and their patients. It is a subversion of the right to contract. A subversion of the right to use one's judgment to act in one's own best interest without interference. It is a subversion of the right of doctors, nurses and insurers to offer products and services to satisfied health care consumers for mutual benefit.

The healh care central planners understand full well that single-payer is not only on the table, it is their goal.

**UPDATE** September 1, 2009

This letter was also published in the Asheville Daily Planet.

RELATED

Public Option Schizophrenia
Yaron Brook | PajamasTV | August 21, 2009

LTE: Healthcare Monopoly

The Editor for the Asheville Citizen-Times writes:

The argument here is convoluted at best. Opponents of a single-payer or other plan generally seem to hew to the line that the free market works best and should be left to work its wonders. However, in the next breath those opponents say a government-backed plan would put private insurers out of business. How that adds up — inefficient government bettering efficient capitalism — we have yet to decipher.

A universal health care plan will become a huge monopoly

Dear Editor, Asheville Citizen-Times,

In a recent AC-T editorial on health care ("We need serious debate on health care reform, not political theater," Jun 24, 2009), the writer claims to be unable to decipher how efficient capitalism can be bested by inefficient government. That, of course, does not mean that the question is undecipherable.

First, we do not have a free market in healthcare. This industry is heavily regulated. The problems we experience in healthcare derive from a long history of politically-driven government interference in that once-proud industry.

The truth is that the government, with its hands already in your pocket, competing with counterparts the private sector is the antithesis of competition. It is the direct negation of fair competition. It is in reality a pathway to coercive monopoly that ultimately squeezes private providers out of the market. Which, of course, is what this administration and the supporters of government-run healthcare want.

In 2003, Mr. Obama said, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal healthcare plan. But we may not get there immediately." And as Chicago Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said in April of 2009, “a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer.”

This is not how a free market competes, this is how the Mafia competes.

(NOTE: This letter was also published in the Asheville Daily Planet, June 1, 2009)

RELATED



Reject political control of health care
Linn, Ari Armstrong | Grand Junction Free Press | June 24, 2009

Health Policy on the Radio
Bob Glass "Radio Free America" with Ari Armstrong | June 23, 2009

That's Not Logical?
Neal Boortz | June 25, 2009
Did you catch this part of PrezBO's presser earlier this week? Some reporter asked him about his government health insurance pushing private health insurers out of business. Obama responds "If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical."

You're Not Buying This 'Competition' Nonsense, Are You?
Neal Boortz | June 29, 2009
Now we know just how ignorant Obama thinks the American people are. Answer: Dumb as rocks. All the president's men (and women) are out selling the asinine idea that Obama's government health insurance idea is going to put competition into the marketplace. This is an idea that one could only sell to a fool. Thanks to our system of government education, we are not suffering any shortage of fools.

Tax Credits for Education
Ayn Rand | 1973
No private concern can compete with a government institution for any length of time, and the injustice involved is obvious: it is a competition in which one contestant has unlimited funds, part of them taken from the other, and in which one contestant is forced to obey the rules arbitrarily set by the other. If any private schools survive, they will survive in name only (which is the typical policy of a fascist state): they are all but hog-tied by the government already.