Local Groups

Local Groups

• To find your Local Group, click on your location in the map below!
• Want to learn how help your Local Group become better?

2004-06-09 Karl Beisel: Moving to Manchester

Moving to Manchester – Head 'em up! Move 'em out!

by Karl Beisel • 6/9/04

I'm pleased to report that I closed on my house in Manchester last weekend, and will be making the move on June 19, just in time for the PorcFest and NHLA dinner the following weekend.

I want to take a moment to explain how I came to select Manchester as my new home, and tell a little about my impressions of the city.

Last December, I did a week-long driving tour of southern New Hampshire, stopping in the towns on a list of possible destinations. My route took me through Keene, Claremont, Lebanon, and Hanover, then down to Concord and Manchester, then up to Rochester, Portsmouth and finally Hampton. I prefer a more urban lifestyle, so I did not stop in small towns and rural areas. I'll describe my impressions of each town briefly.

Keene: This is a neat and vibrant medium-sized city, dominated by Keene State College in the center of town. Its downtown has many businesses that cater to a college crowd. By all appearances, Keene is a great place to live. It is, however, a bit too isolated for my wants, and it has a reputation for being one of the most "liberal" towns in the state, which has advantages and disadvantages, I suppose.

Claremont: This city was mentioned months ago as a possible destination for Free Staters. But be warned, this town is in rough shape. Claremont was the town that originally brought forth those infamous Claremont lawsuits, which resulted in the statewide property tax. The Claremont lawsuits are just the latest attempt by the Claremont government to foist their self-created economic disaster onto the rest of New Hampshire.

Although it has a reasonably pretty downtown with a beautiful City Hall, about a third of the shops are shuttered. It has several abandoned mill buildings that will soon be the home of a technical college that will be moving from its current location north of town. Otherwise, the downtown is in a perpetual state of "revitalization" that has apparently been going on for decades, at great taxpayer expense, and to little effect. Despite all this, the town manages to support BOTH a K-Mart and a Wal-Mart, among the many stores located on Claremont's particularly ugly sprawl strip. There are few jobs and worse-than-usual public schools. The good news: dirt-cheap housing, and the city is nestled amidst some beautiful rural semi-mountainous country.

Lebanon: North of Claremont, Lebanon is like a smaller version of Keene; it has a community college at the town center. It's much prettier than Claremont, and there is actual industry there; it seems to benefit from the nearby interstate highway and its proximity to wealthy Hanover a couple miles north.

Hanover: Home of Dartmouth College, with its premier medical school. Georgetown on the Connecticut River, and absolutely beautiful. This is the definition of a college town; Dartmouth College practically IS the town. Downtown, the many shops, bars and restaurants cater to a college crowd, and the many out-of-state visitors. There are a couple of ski resorts close by as well. By most measures, a fine (though expensive) place to live.

Concord: A bit closer to what I'm looking for, though a tough egg to crack politically, due to the large number of state employees and lobbyist-types. It has a vibrant downtown, with the State House at the center. I visited the State House, and the stories I've heard are true. No metal detectors, no bag searches. I walked through the corridors unmolested. I walked by the office for the "Speaker of the House." I could just walk in if I felt like it. Living with the police presence of Washington, DC, this experience was quite novel. I didn't stay in Concord long, because I wanted to get to the 2nd city on my "short list", Manchester before the end of what, as it turned out, was literally the shortest day of my life (the farthest north I've been on a winter solstice). As I headed out, I noticed the Federal Building, which is oversized and fronts the street at crooked angle, with its bunker-style architecture, completely out of character with the rest of the city, like a UFO had landed in Concord. Typical. Anyway, I decided to avoid I-93, and traveled back roads through Bow to Manchester.

Manchester: There's a whole lot more going on here than anywhere else in New Hampshire. Manchester is the largest city in the state, at about 108,000 people. Its downtown is dominated by a series of large mill buildings, many of which had been abandoned for a long time, but are now mostly in use as warehouses, offices, hotels, retail shops, apartments, a museum, and even a branch of UNH. The downtown is bustling, and it promises to become even more so, with the construction of a new minor league baseball stadium, and new downtown apartments. Manchester may have a reputation for an industrial-grit character, but its downtown is becoming increasingly "yuppie" with new independently-owned coffee shops and restaurants. I'm a yuppie, so I like this stuff.

Transportation is excellent. I-93 and I-293 both go through town (I-93 is being widened now), and there is a small bus system, apparently used mostly by the elderly. As in most NH towns, homes tend to have a lot of off-street parking, which is especially important because of the winter parking ban (most towns in New Hampshire have ordinances that ban street parking during the winter months). There is also rumored to be a future passenger rail line connecting Manchester to Nashua and Boston, but its status is unclear.

Manchester has several identifiable neighborhoods. The very center of the city east of Elm Street (Manchester's "main" street) is densely packed with 4-12 unit tenements, where mostly lower-income residents live. Along Elm Street and in the Mill district along the Merrimack is the site of much post-industrial redevelopment, and an increasingly popular area (read: pricey) for those who like genuine urban living.

Outward, the neighborhoods are generally identified as one of four "ends" – north, east, west and south. The "West End" is the part on the west side of the Merrimack River. This is mostly lower-middle income, mostly apartments mixed in with businesses but also some houses. The "North End" is the upscale part of town, with many large houses, especially along Elm Street, which is ridiculously wide. The "East End/Hanover Hill" neighborhood is largely middle class, as is the "South End" both of which consist mostly of single-family homes. Beyond these urban neighborhoods is the customary asteroid belt of sprawl, with its cookie-cutter colonial houses and strip malls. Beyond that, it gets rural quickly.

Manchester has everything – three pro sports teams (baseball, hockey, and arena football), a major shopping mall (The Mall of New Hampshire), and a newly updated airport with flights throughout the country (note to self: get on Airport Commission and make them stop piping FOX NEWS throughout the airport). There are also many parks, and a large lake (Lake Massabesic) where you can enjoy fishing and light boating. The quality of life here is something to behold.

Rochester: After visiting Manchester, I knew that was the place to be. But Rochester was also one of my "short list" cities, so I headed up that way. I've heard some not-so-flattering things about this city, but I didn't think it was that bad. If you like the seacoast region, Rochester still has reasonably-priced real estate, and a reputation, whether true or not, for being among the more libertarian-leaning towns in New Hampshire. The city's main newspaper has an emblem that reads "Your Rights, Your Liberty." Sounds good to me. I think Rochester is a good compromise city for those who want a city like Claremont but with less poverty. Some Free Staters have suggested Rochester as a candidate for a larger "free town" but I'm not aware of any takers so far.

Portsmouth: I buzzed through Portsmouth pretty quickly. I hear it's a great downtown, but fabulously expensive, being right on the seacoast. It's also a major retirement destination, and a high-tech employment center, due in part to the proximity of a US Navy shipyard that builds submarines (this base has been under the threat of closure for some time). I hear the downtown was a dump not so long ago. Now it's a major tourist destination and a choice spot for uppity living. Lots of restaurants and touristy shops.

Hampton: After a few days in Portland, Maine, I headed back south to Hampton, one of New Hampshire's beach resort towns. It is located adjacent to the Seabrook nuclear power plant. Its downtown is right on the coast, with a small beach, complete with a boardwalk and beachy trinket shops. It was the dead of winter, so the whole place was shut down; even the McDonalds was boarded up. From what I could observe, at least in winter, there must be a rule that you have to be over the age of 65 to live in Hampton. Apparently, like Portsmouth, Hampton is retirement destination. I'll have to return this summer to get another take.

The decision: Manchester.

So, why Manchester? Having lived in very urban neighborhoods in Washington, DC and Arlington, VA, I've come to prefer the urban, where I may walk to most of my destinations, and where I feel I can take a more active part in the community. New Hampshire is one of those special places where its inner cities are, for the most part, still vibrant, productive, and safe. Manchester in particular has a sort of aura about it that seems almost to brag about its industrial ethic, an embodiment of the Yankee spirit that I find so appealing. I want to be a part of that. Other towns share that spirit, but perhaps Manchester's mill yards and the raging Merrimack River through the center of town, and even its large buildings and traffic congestion on Elm Street, make it stand out.

Manchester is the very heart of southern New Hampshire; anyone living there has access to the employment opportunities and amenities available in Portsmouth, Nashua and Concord, and even Metro Boston.

Politically speaking, I know only a little about Manchester politics, just what I've occasionally read in newspapers. As the largest city in the state, with its share of urban problems, I see living there as an opportunity to help open up discussion to new ideas for solving these issues in a way that is consistent with the principles of liberty. I certainly don't see Manchester ever becoming a libertine "free town", but I can imagine that one successful and innovative reform in local government, in a city of that size, could serve as a powerful example of what such policies can achieve. I'll do my best to take my time in becoming a member of the community; and I will pursue my goals as such a member. And so, we'll see how it goes.

Meanwhile, on to the Manchester in New Hampshire, the Free State…

Back to Guestbook

New Hampshire Report 4: Examining Population and Political Accessibility

Examining Population and Political Accessibility

By Keith Murphy
Baltimore, MD

The author has directly managed nine campaigns for state legislative office in Maryland, resulting in six victories. In addition, he has consulted for numerous local races in Baltimore City. These services have included all aspects of campaign management, from analyzing district demographics and voter files to fundraising to production of literature and signs to organizing volunteers and door-to-door. He is eagerly awaiting the opportunity to put this experience to work for those who share his political viewpoints, in the free state.

Introduction

Boosters of small population states, such as Wyoming, Montana, Vermont, and Delaware, will be happy to tell you that the population factor is crucial to the success of the project. It is a cornerstone of the FSP.

But why? Why does population matter?

The typical answer is that the more people are in a given state, the more difficult it will be to reach a required saturation point, a tipping point, in order to achieve the political power it will take to put the state on a course to liberty. Thus, small-state boosters claim, 20,000 activists in New Hampshire are equivalent to only 7,500 in Wyoming.

This is an extremely simplistic way of measuring the states against each other, and could lead to an uninformed vote. It assumes that all other things are equal. But the states are not equal, and there are real and distinct differences between them. For example, isn't it logical that population is only a concern to the degree that the native population leans against us? Would the FSP have a better chance in a state with low taxes and a live-and-let-live attitude, with a population of a million, or in a state of 600,000 with high taxes and onerous infringements on personal liberty? While there inarguably is not yet a fully libertarian state, some are clearly closer to the ideal than others. The closer a state comes to that ideal, the more irrelevant the population factor becomes. This is why members spend so much time weighing and arguing about tax rates, gun laws, drug arrests, and other rough indicators of a state's "libertarian-ness."

But when considering the impact of population on the state choice, there may be another factor that's even more important than political culture. From the FSP site:

The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S., where they may work within the political system to reduce the size and scope of government.

Even more than population, this whole project is dependent on the accessibility of the political system of the chosen state! Even if the given state has a small population, and leans libertarian politically, if the doors to power are closed to us by stifling election laws, all of our efforts will have been in vain. Many of these election laws are directly related to the population issue.

• Each state has different district sizes for their legislature.
• Some states allow multi-member districts, and some do not.
• Some have fusion, and some do not.
• Some have nonpartisan local races, and some do not.
• The ballot access requirement varies widely from one state to the next.
• From a logistical viewpoint, campaigns are more difficult in some states than others, due to geographic features.
• The form of local government is very different from state to state.
• Finally, one state offers an executive council.

A brief overview of these features is provided here.

District Size

Population is only relevant to the state-choice issue for the effect that it has upon our ability to influence the political reality of the chosen state. But each state has very different systems, producing varying districts of very different sizes. District size for each office is one of the key components of understanding the relevance of population, as it provides some measure of the work to be done to begin to take power from the existing political structure.

Even if you ignore differences in political culture, the overall population number is only relevant for those select offices that have the entire state as its district. For example, if you assume that Wyoming and New Hampshire are equally libertarian, then it should be easier to win the governorship of Wyoming than that of New Hampshire, as the number of votes required is substantially less. The same would apply to other statewide offices, such as state's attorney, treasurer, etc. Given the tremendous undertaking of running a credible campaign for these statewide offices, in any of the ten states, it is inevitable that our initial efforts will be concentrated on offices with many less constituents, such as state legislative office and local offices.

The district size is (per the US Supreme Court's disastrous decision in Baker v. Carr) decided by dividing the state's population by the number of seats. This gives the "ideal" district size. Every ten years, following the census, state legislators pore over voter demographic data, and (being careful to include their major campaign contributors in their district and making it as hard as possible for opposing parties) redraw the district lines to account for shifts in population. Each district must be within 5% of the ideal district size, a measure the Supreme Court apparently found under the sofa cushions. As noted above, in general it is true that the smaller the district size the easier it is to win, as the fewer voters that must be courted to achieve victory. The smallest house districts in the nation can be found in New Hampshire, beginning at 2,987 citizens. Vermont comes in next, with 4,059 citizens for its single-member districts. Wyoming can boast the smallest uniform districts, with an ideal district population of 8,230.

State Legislative Districts

State	Ideal House	Multi- Member	Ideal Senate
Alaska	15,673	No	31,346
Delaware	19,112	No	37,314
Idaho	36,962	Yes	36,962
Maine	8,443	No	36,426
Montana	9,022	No	18,044
New Hampshire	3,089	Yes	51,491
North Dakota	13,106	Yes	13,106
South Dakota	21,567	Yes	21,567
Vermont	4,059	Yes	20,294
Wyoming	8,230	No	16,460

Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota all have two-member districts. Vermont has a mix of single-member and two-member districts. New Hampshire is a peculiar case, because of a state constitutional provision that prohibits splitting towns without their permission. This results in multi-member districts of varying size, as detailed below.

Multi-Member Districts

Multi-member districts may be "at large", meaning that all members represent all constituents, or they may be broken into sub-districts. Multi-member districts that are broken into sub-districts (A, B, etc.) usually cover large geographic areas, the given rationale usually being that legislators should live reasonably close to their constituents. Sub-districts usually operate just like single-member districts, in that constituents go into the booth and cast just one vote for that office. In comparison, in at-large districts voters go into the booth and cast as many votes as there are seats. Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota all have two-member house districts, some of which are broken into sub-districts and some of which are not. In New England, the unit of political power is not counties but towns, and districts are drawn in such as way so as to avoid splitting towns wherever possible. The New Hampshire Constitution actually forbids splitting towns without their concurrence, resulting in a wide variety of district sizes. Where Vermont's house consists entirely of one-member and two-member districts, New Hampshire's house districts each have between one and fourteen seats, with the majority of districts having between three and five seats. New Hampshire and Vermont have no sub-districts, as do some of the larger western states.

The practical effect of at-large multi-member districts is that voters get as many votes as there are seats. The major parties sometimes have difficulty finding candidates to run for all the seats in a large district, and it is easy to court the "extra" votes of a constituent. If a Republican has ten votes, and only has eight Republicans to vote for, he is much more likely to give one or both of his extra votes to a Libertarian than a Democrat. Of course, the same is true of a Democrat. Party loyalists are much more likely to vote for a third-party member than they are for "that other party." For example, in 2002 the Wyoming LP ran Marie Brossman for Secretary of State against an incumbent Republican. The Democrats did not field a candidate. It was a brilliant move that paid off handsomely, as Ms. Brossman received 17% of the vote and gave the LP major party status in Wyoming until 2006.

Those states with at-large multi-member districts offer an electoral advantage over those that don't. New Hampshire – with its wide variety of district sizes, offering constituents up to 14 votes each – is particularly attractive in this category.

Fusion

Fusion allows a candidate to run for office under two or more parties simultaneously. In the nineteenth century, fusion was a regular occurrence throughout the nation, but it was such an opportunity for third parties that the major parties worked in concert to ban it in most states. Of the ten candidate states, it is only possible (with slight variances in application) in Vermont, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, South Dakota, and New Hampshire. Of these six states, it would appear that fusion only regularly occurs in Vermont and New Hampshire. The other states could require an attorney general's opinion and a court case to establish a modern precedent, and the first successful use of fusion could trigger a belated effort by the major two parties to ban it.

When a third-party candidate runs under a major party banner, several important things are accomplished. First, the major party includes the nominee on all campaign literature, effectively paying to get the third-party's word out. Second, the nominee benefits from straight-ticket voters in the general election, that distinct subset of voters who don't even bother to look at the candidates' names. Third, the very act of cross-nominating winners gives the third-party credibility.

Fusion is always an electoral advantage, but when combined with multi-member districts, especially large multi-member districts, it produces real opportunity. This is explored in greater detail in the companion report Towards Victory: A Strategy for Achieving a Libertarian Caucus.

Nonpartisan Local Races

Delaware, Vermont, and New Hampshire have predominantly nonpartisan local races. This is an important advantage, because most members who desire to run for office will be cutting their teeth in the local races first. This is an important way to build both name recognition for future political ambition and, in a bigger sense, to build the political machine that elects party members year in and year out. When the race is nonpartisan, the candidates cannot rely on a party label. Instead, the focus is on the candidate's message and arguments. This can only benefit those of us who wish to run as Libertarians.

To clarify, there may be other candidate states that possess this advantage, but the supporters of those states have not brought that information forward. To the best of the author's knowledge, only Delaware, Vermont, and New Hampshire offer nonpartisan local elections.

Ballot Access

Some members have advocated that we subvert one or both of the existing major party structures in the free state, while others have said that a new party or the Libertarian Party is the way to go. If you find yourself in the former group, then there is no advantage or disadvantage to the various states in this regard. If you find yourself in the latter group, then this has a tremendous impact on which state is the best choice.

• Alaska – For major party status, a political party must either have nominated a candidate for governor that received at least 3% of the vote in the last general election or have registered voters equal to at least 3% of the votes cast for governor in the last general election. There are no provisions allowing nomination by petition.

• Delaware – For major party status, a political party must register at least 5% of the total number of voters in the state. A minor party may nominate by convention as long as it has registered at least .05% of the voters in the state. Alternatively, anyone may be placed on the ballot upon submitting a number of petitions equal to 1% of the voters to be served by the objective office.

• Idaho – Any party may qualify for major party status in one of three ways:
  1. Having three or more candidates for state or national office at a general election,
  2. A candidate receiving at least 3% of the votes cast for state or national office, or
  3. Submitting a number of petitions equal to 2% of the number of votes cast for president.

  Anyone may file as an Independent by submitting the relevant number of petitions: 1,000 for statewide office, 500 for congress, 50 for the state legislature, or 5 for county office.

• Maine – "Major parties" are defined as the two parties polling the highest vote totals for governor in the most recent general election. Third parties are blatantly shut out on this score. However, minor parties are still qualified to take part in a primary if they hold municipal caucuses in at least one municipality in each county of the state, if a state convention is held, if the party's candidate for governor or President polled at least 5% of the total in either of the last two general elections, AND if it was on the ballot for either of the last two general elections.

• New Hampshire – For major party status, a political party must nominate a candidate for governor or United States Senator that obtains at least 4% of the vote in a general election. A political organization (minor party) may still have its name on the ballot for the general election by submitting a number of petitions equal to 3% of the votes cast in the last general election. Anyone can be nominated by submitting 3,000 petitions for governor, 750 for state senator, or 150 for state representative.

• North Dakota – A political organization may not nominate anyone for statewide or legislative office unless it:
  1. Holds a caucus meeting in every voting precinct throughout the state by May 15th immediately following a general election,
  2. Had a candidate for president or governor receive at least 5% of the vote at the most recent general election, OR
  3. Submits 7,000 petitions to the secretary of state.

  Independents must be nominated at the primary election, with a different ballot clearly marked "No-Party." The number of people nominated for each office through the no-party process is twice the number of seats. In other words, as there can only be one governor, no more than two "no-party" candidates can be nominated.

• South Dakota – For major party status, a party must submit a number of petitions equal to 2.5% of the votes cast for governor in the last preceding election. A minor party may have its designation on the general ballot by submitting 250 petitions for statewide or federal office, or 5 petitions for legislative or county office. Independents may be placed on the general ballot by submitting a number of petitions equal to 1% of the total votes for the office of governor in the relevant district or subdivision in the most recent general election.

• Vermont – For major party status, a party must have received at least 5% of the vote for any statewide office in the most recent general election. Minor parties may not nominate someone for statewide office unless town committees are set up in at least ten different towns. Anyone may be nominated to be on the general election ballot by submitting 250 signatures for statewide offices, 100 for state senator, or 50 for state representative.

• Wyoming – For major party status, a political party must nominate a candidate for statewide office that obtains at least 10% of the vote in a general election. To nominate via petitions, the party must submit a number of petitions equal to 2% of the votes cast in the relevant jurisdiction for the office of United States Representative in the preceding general election.

Geographic Features

The area of the candidate states, and their districts, is a factor that deserves serious consideration. Some states have a larger rural population, while the residents of some states prefer living in denser areas, mostly due to climate issues. There are two primary reasons why the area of the state should be a concern. First, the logistical difficulty of operating a campaign is directly proportional to the distance that must be covered. Campaigns in denser districts may be done on foot, whereas larger districts require hours to canvass in a vehicle. Second, larger areas make influencing the political process more difficult. There is much to be done in this regard, such as testifying before senate and house committees and visiting legislators to discuss issues. This is much easier when the state house is within easy commuting distance.

Geographic Rural/Urban Characteristics

State	Area1	Avg. House Area2	% Urban Areas3	Pop. Center to Capital4
Alaska	571,951	14,299	44.3	821.5
Delaware	1,954	48	67.8	25.8
Idaho	82,747	1,182	46.7	129.9
Maine	30,862	204	24.6	2.7
Montana	145,552	1,456	25.9	90.1
New Hampshire	8,968	102	44.6	7.3
North Dakota	68,976	1,468	35.8	116.4
South Dakota	75,885	2,168	25.8	126.7
Vermont	9,250	20	17.3	37.7
Wyoming	97,100	1,618	25.5	206.6

1	The area of the states in square miles.
2	The area divided by the number of state house districts. This is merely an average; it is important to remember that urban districts are quite small while rural districts are much larger.
3	The percentage of the population of the state that lives in urban areas, as defined by the United States Census Bureau.
4	The distance from the state capital to the population center of a given state. This measure represents spatially where the capital is in regards to the population of the state. (See here and here).

Local Government

In the western states and in Delaware, the primary form of local government is based on county jurisdictions. Within each county there may be incorporated areas that may enact their own ordinances, as long as they are in compliance with the laws of the state and county. The end result of this system is to have all citizens under a tiered system, with those living in municipalities suffering from an additional level.

The three New England states are different. While they have counties, they exist mostly as lines on the map. Most of the functions of local government are performed at the town level, and the majority of the land area in the states is incorporated. In general, courts are operated at the county level, but all other functions, from roads to police to fire service to schools, are administered at the town level. Issues are discussed at town meetings, giving each citizen an opportunity to speak his mind.

This form of government has several important advantages. First, it is the closest to the people, assuring that everyone in each town knows their elected town officials personally. Remember, most power rests in the hands of town officials instead of county officials administering vastly larger areas. Second, it provides citizens amazing control over the town budget. In New Hampshire, fifteen signatures is enough to place a budget item, called a "warrant," on the ballot for referendum. If you don't want that new high school, get fifteen signatures and vote it down. If you don't want the town to get a new garbage truck because you think trash collection should be privatized, get fifteen signatures and put it on the ballot. Many towns have less than 1,000 people, and some have less than 100. Hart's Location, NH, only has 37 residents. Each town is in control of all of its spending.

This brings me to the final advantage of the town-centered form of local government. There are some areas of the New England states that are not incorporated. These are very lightly populated, and residents contract with the nearest town to provide those services that they do not provide for themselves, such as schools. There is no constitutional provision in New Hampshire requiring public schools, but there is a constitutional prohibition against the state issuing unfunded mandates to the towns. Thus, there is no reason why a small group of FSP members could not simply move to an unincorporated area and incorporate as a new town. For this town, they could write their own charter, prohibiting public schools, taxes, zoning, and anything else they wish. They could even decide to not have a police department.

For that matter, there are even some low-population towns that a few dozen FSP members would quickly overwhelm from sheer numbers. The current ordinances could be repealed and the charter altered. The degree to which this opportunity exists varies throughout the New England states. Vermont's constitution does not protect towns from unfunded state mandates, while Maine's constitution requires public schools to be maintained. New Hampshire offers both advantages.

Executive Council

As noted earlier, population – as a factor in the state choice – is only relevant because of the implications it holds for our ability to influence the process and work within the political system. For elections, the population of the entire state only matters when the entire state is your district; that is to say, for statewide offices. There are very few statewide offices. In most states only the governor, attorney general, and treasurer come under the heading of "statewide," and these are the only offices for which the state's population is an issue. As we will likely begin in local and state legislative races, it is the size of those districts that should most concern us.

New Hampshire possesses an advantage in this regard: the ability to influence the executive branch without winning a statewide office. The governor works with an elected "Executive Council," which must approve any expenditure over $5,000. They help the governor craft the budget, approve the placement of roads, and otherwise direct the day-to-day operation of government. The council has five members, elected from districts of roughly 247,157 persons each. These districts are, then, each almost exactly half the population of Wyoming, and would allow us to influence the executive branch earlier than is possible in any other state.

Conclusion

It is extremely simplistic to measure the candidate states against each other simply on the basis of overall population, as doing so assumes all other things are equal, which is assuredly not the case. There are two primary complicating factors that must be taken into consideration when weighing population. The first is the degree to which the native population leans with or against us. It is far better for the project to be in a state of a million people who lean libertarian than in a state of a half-million that leans socialist.

The second factor, which is even more important, is the accessibility of the given state's political system. There are many measures of accessibility, some of which can be quantified and some of which cannot. They include such measures as district size, whether the state has multi-member districts or fusion, or both, ballot access, and other unique features.

Considering population as a factor through these lenses provides a much more accurate picture of our chances of actually effecting change in the candidate states. One state, in particular, leaps to the top of the pile, both in terms of the libertarian leanings of the native population and, most importantly, in openness of the political system. On every measure here reviewed, New Hampshire comes out at, or near, the top. Of critical importance is the fact that New Hampshire offers that which no other state can: fusion combined with large multi-member districts. This crucial advantage is explored further in a companion report, Towards Victory: A Strategy for Achieving a Libertarian Caucus.

Libertarianism and Land Value Taxation

NOTE: The opinions and commentary expressed in this essay are those of the author and are an exercise of free speech. They do not necessarily represent the views of Free State Project Inc., its Directors, its Officers, or its Participants.

Libertarianism and Land Value Taxation

By John H. Beck
Professor of Economics
Gonzaga University

1. LIBERTARIAN FOLLOWERS OF HENRY GEORGE

For some libertarians any tax is illegitimate (Feser 2000). However, one tax that has received some support from libertarians who advocate a limited government financed by taxation is a tax on land values. The most famous advocate of land value taxation is Henry George, the author of Progress and Poverty (1879). Yeager (1984) identifies several libertarian views shared by Henry George, including his opposition to protectionist trade policy, his rejection of socialism, and his defense of natural rights including property rights. Several prominent libertarians in the early twentieth century were influenced by Henry George, including Albert Jay Nock, author of Our Enemy the State (1935), and Frank Chodorov, who became the director of the Henry George School of Social Science and editor of the Freeman in 1937 (Nash 1996, 11-14; Raimondo 1993, 114-129). Maurice Allais, one of four future Nobel prize winners attending the first meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947, declined to sign the society's Statement of Aims because its defense of private ownership of land conflicted with his Georgist ideas (Hartwell 1995, 42). This illustrates that Georgist ideas about land ownership and taxation have frequently been divisive among libertarians. Yeager (1984, 160) notes that Murray Rothbard rejected George's moral and economic arguments for land value taxation, although Rothbard applauded George's discussion of patents and copyrights as well as his advocacy of free trade.

2. ARGUMENTS FOR LAND VALUE TAXATION

There are both equity and efficiency arguments for land value taxation. The equity argument is that land is given by nature and the value of the land was not created by human effort. Furthermore, increases in the value of land are caused by public services and economic development in the neighborhood, not by the effort of the landowner. For example, the construction of an interstate highway will increase the value of land near a highway interchange as this becomes a more desirable site for business development. Therefore, it is argued, because the landowner has done nothing to deserve the gain from his ownership of land, the government should capture this gain through taxation and use it for the benefit of all members of society. However, as discussed in section IV below, there are also equity arguments against replacing the current system of property taxation with a tax only on land values.

The efficiency argument for land value taxation is that, unlike almost all other taxes, it does not discourage productive activity or distort choices among consumer goods. A tax on wages discourages work effort. The property tax on improvments discourages construction and other improvements. Tariffs on imported goods discourage international trade. But the supply of land is fixed, given by nature. A tax on the value of land (based on its potential use), will not discourage the landowner from making the land available. The owner must pay the same tax regardless of what he does or does not do with the land. It should be noted that the method of assessing land values is crucial; changes in the market value of land attributable to permanent improvements to a site should not be included in the taxable land value.

3. POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Advocates of any tax reform proposal need to consider likely sources of opposition and support and to devise strategies to minimize opposition and build a coalition of supporters.

Opponents of land value taxation have often charged that this would shift the burden of taxation to farmers, who own large areas of land (Peirce 2003, 6). Although in fact family farmers might benefit from an increase in the tax rate on land value offset by a reduction in the tax on improvements (Wenzer 1999, 239-268), a reform strategy assuaging farmers' fears would have greater chance of success. Limiting land value taxation to urban areas rather than adopting it as the "single tax" for all state and local government revenues would eliminate opposition from farmers.

Environmentalists are not often allies of libertarians, but land value taxation is one issue which both might support. Environmentalists support replacing the property tax on improvements with land value taxation in urban areas because it would encourage more development in urban centers and discourage sprawl (Durning and Bauman 1998, 57-65; Wenzer 1999, 205-223).

4. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

"An old tax is a good tax." This adage does not merely reflect the fact that people prefer the taxes to which they have grown accustomed to new, unfamiliar taxes. The implementation of any tax reform affecting the taxation of durable assets raises serious equity issues, and land is the most durable of assets. This is due to the phenomenon of "tax capitalization." The value of an asset reflects the present value of the expected future income to be derived from that asset. Anticipated future taxes reduce the expected future income and thus are "capitalized" in the value of the asset.

To understand how tax capitalization may create inequities when unexpected tax reforms are implemented, consider an unanticipated shift from a property tax applied at the same rate to land and improvements to a tax on only land value that yields the same total revenue. Compare the effects of this change on the values of two properties, a parking lot and a parcel with a ten-story office building. Almost all of the value of the parking lot is the land value, but most of the value of the parcel with the office building consists of "improvements." The market value of the office building will increase as the anticipated future taxes fall, and the value of the parking lot will fall as the tax rate on the land value increases. When the current owners of these properties purchased them, they each paid a price that reflected the expectation that the old property tax system would continue into the future. The unanticipated tax reform causes a "windfall gain" to the owner of the office building and a "windfall loss" to the owner of the parking lot. Many people consider such windfalls "unfair."

One method to ameliorate such windfalls is to implement tax reforms gradually. For example, rather than immediately abolishing the property tax on improvements and imposing a tax on land values sufficient to raise all the desired revenue, a "split-rate" property tax might be adopted. Under this system the land component of property values is taxed at a higher rate than the tax rate on improvements.

5. EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF LAND VALUE TAXATION

Pittsburgh, along with a few smaller Pennsylvania municipalities, has had a "graded" or "split-rate" property tax for several decades. Prior to 1979, the city of Pittsburgh taxed land at twice the rate applied to structures (although county and school district property taxes applied the same rate to land and improvements). After 1980, the city of Pittsburgh raised its rate on land to about five times the rate on structures. This policy change provides an opportunity for researchers to test empirically whether land value taxation really does have the beneficial effects ascribed to it by theoretical analyses. Oates and Schwab (1997) analyzed building activity in 15 "rust belt" cities from 1960 to 1989 and found a significant increase in building activity in Pittsburgh after the 1980 tax reform. Of course such empirical studies are plagued by the difficulty of measuring the effect of a change in one variable when other variables that might affect the outcome are changing as well. In the case of Pittsburgh, the increase in taxes on land was accompanied by large tax abatements on new structures although there was no decrease in the property tax rate applied to old buildings. Oates and Schwab conclude that the revenue raised by the land tax increase allowed the city to grant tax abatements on new building and to avoid raising other taxes that would have discouraged economic activity in the city. Additional studies showing the effects of the split-rate tax in Pennsylvania are Bourassa (1987 and 1990) and Cord (1983).

Cord (1983, 172-173) briefly mentions evidence of the effects of land value taxation compared to the conventional property tax on land and improvments from Australia. A more extensive study of the Australian experience was done by Edwards (1984), who found that the value of new housing and the housing stock was greater in Australian communities that taxed land at a higher rate than improvements than in communities with a uniform property tax on land and improvements.

6. CONCLUSION

For libertarians who believe markets generally allocate resources efficiently, the best tax is one which creates the least distortion of market incentives. A tax on the value of land meets this criterion. Furthermore, the benefits of local government services will be reflected in the value of land within the locality. Therefore, it may be deemed fair that landowners pay taxes to finance these services in proportion to the value of the benefits they receive. Although Henry George advocated a tax on land values as the "single tax" to replace all other taxes, a tax on land value seems especially appropriate for municipal governments. If a complete shift from the current property tax to a tax on land value alone seems too radical, municipal governments might reduce the property tax rate on improvements while imposing a higher tax rate on the value of land.

Land value taxation has been under consideration in several eastern European countries. As reported by Youngman and Malme (1999), Estonia adopted a tax on the market value of land in 1992. Nations considering a tax structure fostering a market economy in the post-communist era may present one of the most promising opportunities for implementing land value taxation.

REFERENCES

Borcherding, Thomas E.; Patricia Dillon; and Thomas D. Willett. "Henry George: Precursor to Public Choice Analysis." American Journal of Economics and Sociology 57 (April 1998): 173-182.

Bourassa, Steven C. "Land Value Taxation and New Housing Development in Pittsburgh." Growth and Change 18 (Fall 1987): 44-55.

Bourassa, Steven C. "Land Value Taxation and Housing Development: Effects of the Property Tax Reform in Three Types of Cities." American Journal of Economics and Sociology 49 (January 1990): 101-111.

Cord, Steven B. "Taxing Land More Than Buildings: The Record in Pennsylvania." In The Property Tax and Local Finance, pp. 172-179. Edition by C. Lowell Harriss. New York: The Academy of Political Science, 1983.

Durning, Alan Thein, and Yoram Bauman. Tax Shift: How to Help the Economy, Improve the Environment, and Get the Tax Man off Our Backs. Seattle: Northwest Environment Watch, 1998.

Edwards, Mary E. "Site Value Taxation in Australia: Where Land Is Taxed More and Improvements Less, Average Housing Values and Stocks Are Higher." American Journal of Economics and Sociology 43 (October 1984): 481-495.

Feser, Edward. "Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft." The Independent Review 5 (Fall 2000): 219-235.

Gaffney, Mason. "Equity Premises and the Case for Taxing Rent." American Economic Review 82 (May 1992): 274-279.

George, Henry. Progress and Poverty. New York: Walter J. Black, 1942.

Hartwell, R. M. A History of the Mont Pelerin Society. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1995.

Horton, Joseph, and Thomas Chisholm. "The Political Economy of Henry George: Its Ethical and Social Foundations." American Journal of Economics and Sociology 50 (July 1991): 375-384.

Martin, Thomas L. "Protection or Free Trade: An Analysis of the Ideas of Henry George on International Commerce and Wages." American Journal of Economics and Sociology 48 (October 1989): 489-501.

Nash, George H. The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America. Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1996.

Netzer, Dick. "On Modernizing Local Public Finance: Why Aren't Property Taxes in Urban Areas Being Reformed into Land Value Taxes?" American Journal of Economics and Sociology 43 (October 1984): 497-501.

Nock, Albert Jay. Our Enemy the State. New York: Free Life Editions, 1973.

Oates, Wallace, and Robert Schwab. "The Impact of Urban Land Taxation: The Pittsburgh Experience." National Tax Journal 50 (March 1997): 1-21.

Peirce, William S. "The Progressives and the Property Tax: Ohio's Constitutional Convention of 1912." Paper presented at the Public Choice Society meeting, Nashville, TN, March 2003.

Raimondo, Justin. Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement. Burlingame, CA: Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993.

Teti, Dennis. "The Socialist Idealism of 'Supply Side' Economics -- Henry George's Progress and Poverty." The Political Science Reviewer 14 (Fall 1984): 195-228.

Wenzer, Kenneth C. (ed.), Land-Value Taxation. M.E. Sharpe, 1999.

Whitaker, John K. "Enemies or Allies? Henry George and Francis Amasa Walker One Century Later." Journal of Economic Literature 35 (December 1997): 1891-1915.

Yeager, Leland B. "Henry George and Austrian Economics." History of Political Economy 16 (1984): 157-174.

Youngman, Joan, and Jane Malme. "Issues in Land Taxation and Property Taxation in Central and Eastern Europe." In Proceedings, 91st Annual Conference on Taxation, pp. 137-143. Washington, DC: National Tax Association, 1999.

Killington Ads

Killington Ads

This "shadow ad" campaign consists of three, half-page, week-long ads in the Mountain Times newspaper, in Killington VT.

The issue revolves around Killington's threat to secede to New Hampshire, due to the high taxes in Vermont. See related news stories in: CNN, Boston Globe, and Newsday.

These ads welcome Killington to join the Free State Project in New Hampshire!

"Kid" (2/12/04)		"Change" (2/19/04)		"House" (2/26/04)

Thanks to FSP Advertising Coordinator, Amy Knickerbocker.

[Other Advertising]