To the Editor:
The editorial page in the Tuesday (11/20) WDN was just full of interesting things.
First there was the WDN editorial itself which pointed out how much change in income there has been for the rich versus the middle class versus the poorest among us. It wasn’t clear if that was an exercise in class envy or simply the reporting of some facts. When the writer suggested that the reported changes clearly showed that the EDC and the Committee of 100 are beneficial to Beaufort County, it was also not clear whether the connection was clear because the results they reported were so good or so bad.
As an aside: Do you suppose that if the rich hadn’t made more than the rest of us all along, they would still be “the rich”?  But I digress.
Could the EDC and Committee of 100 that the WDN seems to think we need possibly be the same EDC and Committee of 100 that took us down the path of becoming big time developers? Would that be the same folks who steered us toward erecting so called “industry ready” buildings (based on “studies” that indicated that was the way to go; studies that no one was ever able to produce)? It is not clear that Beaufort County taxpayers can afford much more of that kind of “help.”
And then, in a not at all offensive piece as far as it went, Scott Mooneyham raises the issue of a shortage of DOT highway funding. He correctly points out that because vehicles are getting improved mileage and the numbers of electric cars are increasing, the amount of gas tax being collected is decreasing. He further discusses alternatives that have been explored to addressing the situation.
There was, however, no discussion as to why the NC Highway Dept. is short of money. There was no discussion as to how much the tree huggers have added to the cost of highway construction with some of the idiotic requirements they have managed to institutionalize.
There was a discussion as to how we could get more money for highway construction; increased gas tax, charge by the mile driven, etc. Surely an Excise tax on electric vehicle batteries and other electric vehicle expendables could be imposed which would preserve the “user pays” philosophy of highway construction and maintenance and obviate the need for the “miles driven” approach to taxation. What was not even mentioned was the notion of having the tree-huggers come up with the funds to pay for the costs their “requirements” add to the cost of highway construction. Let the tree-huggers pay their share of road construction and maintenance costs. As our Prez would say, “Let them pay their fair share.”
JIM BISPO
Belhaven