In Part One, we discussed two rather different meanings that can be implied by the word, “free”.
As luck would have it, both of them can easily be applied to the Pagosa Daily Post.
The Daily Post has always been, and continues to be, a “free” publication. No one needs to purchase a subscription, or pay any money, to enjoy (or be disgusted by) our news coverage and opinions. This arrangement is possible, partly because of very low overhead. The electrons that compose the text and images on the Daily Post are pretty dang cheap — very nearly “free”. And since our staff (the editor and several regular contributors) are paid little to nothing, and are willing to live relatively undecorated lifestyles, the total cost of operating the Daily Post, five days a week, is less than most people’s monthly car payment.
One of the joys of operating a business that offers its flagship product free of charge, to anyone and everyone, is that you never end up with enough money to play the stock market, or buy into Bitcoin. And right now, that might be a good thing.
Another benefit to running a free, low-cost news business. You don’t need to worry too much about pissing off your advertisers or your customers when you express your opinion. Which means that the Daily Post is also “free” in the sense that George F. Will discussed in Part One of the editorial series: not controlled by outside forces. We’re fully capable to utilizing the constitutionally-guaranteed protections afforded a free press, because we are at liberty to publish pretty much anything we want to publish. Some print newspapers — requiring a steady income to meet high printing, distribution, and staffing costs — need to be careful about what they report, and how they report it. And about whose feathers get ruffled. You don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you.
So in these two senses, the Daily Post can claim, with some justification, to be ‘free’. Not everyone can make the same claim. But there are other ways to use the word, “free”.
The online thesaurus I normally use when writing, WordReference.com, lists 11 meanings for the adjective “free”. (It also lists three verb meanings.) The adjective form with which I am least familiar, is “free” in the sense of “generous”. (Maybe because I don’t talk or write, often enough, about generosity?)
Sense: Adjective: generous
Synonyms: generous, openhanded, open-handed, free-handed, freehanded, liberal, charitable, giving, willing, hospitable, free and easy
But several of the 11 meanings of “free” relate to being unrestrained, unburdened, unregulated. The antonyms being, of course: restrained, burdened, regulated. Also, enslaved, shackled, subjugated, confined.
In Part One, we touched very briefly on a couple of online news articles that involved Washington Post columnist George F. Will, one of the few Republican academics who’ve made a successful career as a newspaper columnist, considering that it’s somewhat unusual to come through a university or the newspaper business and still feel comfortable within the Republican Party. (I think of my own father, who was the only member of his large family to attend the university, and was also the only member of his family to become a Democrat.)
But Mr. Will decided, long ago, that a “free market” economy was worth arguing for, in spite of any negative consequences.
To repeat the George F. Will quote from yesterday:
The conservative sensibility finds the lack of design and lack of control of a spontaneous-order, free market society to be exhilarating. Some people find it frightening; others find it offensive that things are going on without people organizing it and bossing people around. The conservative sensibility says lack of control is a good thing.
One might suspect that, when writing on behalf of an organization such as the Daily Post — being itself largely unrestrained, unburdened and unregulated, on so many accounts — that the editor would agree with Mr. Will on the advantages of a ‘free market’ economy. One might suspect that the Daily Post hates to see people bossed around, and organized.
But as we know, the regulation and subjugation and restraint is often practiced on an ‘unequal’ playing field.
For example. Various regulations require me to pay property tax to the Colorado state government, and to the local municipal government, for the privilege of owning a house. I’m pleased of course, to have a house to live in, and I’m quite comfortable writing a check to the County Treasurer every year. I know, with some certainty, that most of the money will be spent providing valuable services to my community. Yes, some will be spent foolishly, and maybe even in an essentially harmful manner, and the citizens need to be watchful about that problem. But for the most part, I am untroubled about paying property taxes.
The State of Colorado — a phrase which refers to all of us living in this particular part of the country, but also refers to certain elected officials and hired employees — the State of Colorado asks that I pay an annual tax of 7.15 mills on my property. (But they don’t take ‘No’ for an answer.)
The commercial businesses downtown, however, pay a property tax rate of 29% — roughly four times the rate paid by residential property. Those commercial businesses include, for example, the hotels and motels. The way that commercial property is appraised also differs from how residential property is valued.
We here notice an ‘unequal’ playing field, which makes it more challenging to operate a business in a commercial property, in Colorado, than in certain other nearby states.
In particular, we might note that, if I were to convert my house into a so-called “vacation rental” or “Short-Term Rental” — that is, if I were to convert my house into a small, 3-bedroom motel — I would continue to pay my property taxes at the lower 7.15% rate, even though I was now operating a commercial motel business. But the 20-room motel down the block will be paying at the higher 29% rate.
The commercial 20-room motel contributes to the governmental operations in my community much more generously — per property value — than does the STR.
Why the State of Colorado — which refers to all of us — has allowed this unfair situation to continue, I cannot explain.
There is a pathway for the local taxpayers to address this inequity, if we chose to.
Bill Hudson began sharing his opinions in the Pagosa Daily Post in 2004 and can’t seem to break the habit. He claims that, in Pagosa Springs, opinions are like pickup trucks: everybody has one.