Speed Limits on the lake - a solution looking for a problem?
Doug and I were on Political Chowder last week. One of the questions we were asked was "why are we so anti-government?". A fair question, and I'm not sure that I gave a real good answer. Thus, let me try a bit better with this example, as it also goes to one of the other disucssions during our panel "what do you think about the speed limits on the Lake?"
In reading the Daily Sun, I learned something about the on-going debate on if there should be speed limits on the Big Lake - it should give pause to all.
In its earliest draft, house Bill 847 capped lake speeds across the state permanently. Rep. Jim Pilliod (R-Belmont) the prime sponsor of HB 847, called the final version a major compromise. He said that the idea for the bill came from a Gilford marina owner hurt by too many speeders.
He also said:
But I've been power boating since 1935 and I've never gone faster than 25. High speeds are fun for some at the expense of others' feelings of safety.
and was quoted in the Citizen (1/31)
a good way to set a "standard of behavior"
My translation?
"Because I don't, nobody else should either. And peoples' feelings should come before empirical data that is opposite my stand. Add to it, the go-fast boats and their owners are icky, selfish, and uncaring about the rest of us".
Boy, this RINO sounds more and more like a Dem rather than an R. And that's the problem - this is nothing but "feel good" legislation. One of the core aspects of Republicanism is limited government. And his anecdote about a Mom killing her daughter playing tag on jet-skis never mentioned speed and did not mention that this was an act of stupidity, not speed.
First off, let's point out an incident of yet another Republican acting badly. Really badly. Instead of standing for limited and non-instrusive government, Pilliod decided that he would insert the full weight and regulation that can be brought by Government to assist a single business. Why? It seemingly the fact that a "Gilford marina" cannot be as successful in the marketplace, on its own merits, as the owner(s) wish. So, let's use the connection
If you are a business, or work in a business, this can affect you just because "the other guy" is politically connected. And in this case, someone who sells these higher end boats is now, more than likely, to be put out of business.
So the question is - which Marina owner decided that their business was more important than trying to compete on their own? Was it Fay's? Silver Sands? Or was it from the more general Lakes Region - Irwin? Thurston's?
And you know who gets hurt the most? The mechanics. The secretaries. The sales guys. And all the folks that supply and keep those expensive boats going.
This is similar to the luxury boat tax that was passed years ago to "stick it to the rich" who could afford high end yachts. Who really got hurt? Not the rich yacht owners - but the small independant yards and their workers as the need for their services and products dried up. Why? The "rich" spent their money somewhere else. The yard owners and employees, effectively stripped of their income due to "do gooder" legislators, made them unemployed. The land that the marinas had occupied were often turned into high end condos. Which of course, the Liberal legislators decried as it "prevented access to the water!"
The Law of Unintended consequences.....
Back to Political Chowder. The Liberals that were on the panel that Doug and I were on kept stressing "Health and Safety" issues. Let's look at the data, shall we? Here is the from the Marine Patrol:
All Reports Reports for Speed
2007 54 3 5.6%
2006 80 1 1.25%
2005 60 4 6.7%
194 8 4.3%
Thus, over 93% of all accidents were due to other than speed. Yet, instead of addressing those categories, our intrepid legislators have to deal with this instead of the State's fiscal problem.
Look, some of these boats cost more than my house. An afternoon of high speed cruising can cost hundreds of dollars in gas. These operators are not going to risk losing their boats doing not following the rules of the water.
Frankly, this is the same thing that Mr. DeVoy did here in Gilford - used Government regulation (the water aquifer regulation) to defend his turf for his own business and made it too expensive for Cumberland Farms to move in a few doors down. Legal? Yes. Philosophically honest? Not in my opinion.
This is government at it's worst - picking, choosing, and supporting a given business in the private marketplace. This is just another instance of government distorting the free marketplace for no good reason at all.
Liberals think that is is a health and safety issue. Wrong!
It is a Freedom issue.
Less choices means, by definition, less freedom. All because of a Republican that decides that he will use Government to once again distort the marketplace.
Of course, let's not forget the Governor on this all. Once again when a tough issue comes up, he backs off on taking a stand. That's supposed to be leadership?
Comments
Posted by: T. Stewart | February 11, 2008 2:38 PM