What are the implied principles governing Ogden?

Obviously Ogden City government, like every city government, has some principles, like when they hold meetings, some allowance for public attendance (both in person and remotely)….

But, based on the behavior of the government, in its rule over the community, is the City choking off economic opportunities for its residents by

competing with its residents for economic opportunities?
imposing burdensome business regulations that thwart free enterprise and wealth creation?
owning unnecessary property?
demanding that the council’s cosmetic taste for historic sites be funded on the backs of the tax payer?
imposing burdensome residential regulations that thwart home improvement projects and a modest side business?
having a property tax structure that punishes residents for adding value to their neighborhood?

In case you didn’t know, the answer to all these questions is a depressing “YES!”

Vis-a-vis these principles, one does not see Ogden adhering to sane government. Rather one sees the City violating basic moral principles.

When the city–who has the police force and regulatory force on its side–competes with individuals who are subject to the city’s forces, the city has an unfair and immoral advantage. Clearly the city can more easily change or violate the regulations involved in its work than the citizen can change or obtain an exception to regulations.

Ogden residential property taxes are based on the property’s valuation. So if one makes an improvement on one’s property, even though said resident has improved his neighbors’ property values, for doing this favor one is likely to have his taxes increased. In this way, property taxes incentivize not making improvements.

If instead of taxing on the basis of the property’s valuation, the tax was assessed on the basis of the lot size and location, this alternative approach would avoid disincentivizing property improvements to Ogden communities.

The City of Ogden owns a bunch of property, and continues to buy homes and flip them, often to a more criminally inclined population (i.e., HUD housing). Moreover, this approach competes with Ogden home flippers, denying Ogden residents their natural right to create wealth.

When the city of Ogden buys properties, the property is not managed economically. The city employees’ paychecks are not dependent on how many days nothing was done to improve the property.

In contrast, when a private citizen takes on the financial responsibility he performs a more economic transformation of the property.

But my main point in this scenario is not merely that the private individual typically does a better job than the inefficient and poorly motivated government, but rather that it is immoral for the government to compete with private enterprise.

Government competing with private enterprise is immoral because

It is not in the nature of government to create wealth
- It is not in the nature of government to be in competition with her citizen’s natural right to engage in commerce
  - The government adjudicates regulations for its citizens, and tends to give easier regulations for itself than for the citizen.
  - The government has the power of the gun. The police will do the bidding of the government against the citizen and take the gun to the head of the citizen.
  - The government has the power of tilting the scales of justice for itself and against the citizen

This is why it is immoral for the government to compete with its citizens in the marketplace.

Moreover, no government has taxed itself into prosperity.

Governments are parasitic. Governments perform some management over an economy wherein the government creates no wealth. It is best for this government to not over-manage. All wealth is basically created by the free market.