The Common Good

Exactly what constitutes the "common good"? When it comes to government spending, who defines "common good"? Should there be some kind of ratio which would determine the amount of pain one group to help another group? 5 to 1? 100 to 1? 5,000 to 1?

I know what you are thinking here comes another rant about entitlement programs and welfare, but nope, this has nothing to do with that at all, it is much smaller than that and certainly much more local.

I have often written about the culture of spending or not spending begins at the local level. Here in hot and steamy Sturbridge, we have yet another case of whether or not we should spend money on a project ($760,000) which will benefit only a few. A few being defined as five residents.

I am referring to a proposal which is asking that Walker Road be paved. It is currently a dirt.gravel road and has been for as long as I can remember. Evidently there are five new houses up there who bought their houses and land, knowing the road was dirt when they purchased them, and now have decided the road should be paved.

Which raises the original question: How much money should other residents be expected to pay to benefit only a few? I don't have a count on how many other residents live on Walker Road (not to be confused with Walker Pond) but according to an email I received from one Walker Road resident, the majority don't want the road paved.

Is this a wise use of tax payer dollars? Again. should the rest of the town be forced to pay for something that only five residents on the street seem to be in favor of?

The issue is to be discussed this Monday, August 6, at 6:35 PM during the Selectman's meeting. I've said it before and I'll say it again, stopping excessive and unnecessary spending starts here.