Elections Rebalance Conflicting Interests


Some reasoning in Federalist Papers numbers 51-53 applies to our recent Payson election. One reason for elections is to avoid the risk of tyranny if we don't have them. We live in a complex society with common, competing and conflicting interests.

The federalist authors thought it important to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part. Frequent elections reduce the risk of such injustice by providing an opportunity for a rebalancing of conflicting interests.

Since the business and development community gave substantial financial support to some of those elected, people in Payson who can barely afford to live here have reason to be concerned about the possibility of a substantial shift in the burdens of government.

Which side will the town council support in such issues?

Rapid growth may result in more expensive water and higher taxes because of limited land available for development. Related concerns are the possibilities of impact fee reductions (and the) removal of barriers to growth.

If (you) feel the town council is about to impose unfair or unaffordable burdens, let the council know and consult others who share your view. The town council certainly will not knowingly create conditions that force a substantial portion of the population to leave Payson.

If, however, it appears that is happening, consider becoming involved in the political process. If enough people respond in that way, misguided town policies can be changed at the next election.

Because of growth pressures, the water supply situation and the current drought, the new council and mayor face significant challenges. We wish them well in making decisions that will be in the best interest of all the people of Payson.

Jim Winter


Commenting has been disabled for this item.