Why the Council should not fund the High Street water fountain

East Grinstead Town Council must not adopt the repairs and maintenance bill for the High Street water fountain. Such an adoption would be of questionable value to the community, and the taxation to finance it would be wrong even if it did help residents overall. Before I establish these claims though, let me first outline the details of the proposals being voted on by the Council on Monday.

The East Grinstead Society has commendably taken the initiative to fund the initial up-front costs to restore the water fountain to working order. However, the Society is not willing to foot the bill for the repairs and maintenance of the fountain. This bill is estimated to come in at about  £3,000 annually. This is made up of £1,000 for cleaning and repairs, £530 for testing (for Legionellas etc.), another £500 for sanitising the fountain weekly,  with about £1,000  for the water itself. The average cost per taxpayer is thus expected to be about 26p.

The political philosophy of the East Grinstead Conservatives is government should do what is for the greater good of the town. Let us accept this for the moment, and discern how free markets help achieve this goal, before moving onto the fountain itself.

In a free market it is easy to discern whether or not consumers value a service at more than its costs. Consider a caramelised peanut vendor: He will have costs (peanuts, sugar, gas etc.) and a revenue. This revenue is constituted by people buying his nuts. Each consumer in making the purchase demonstrates he values the nuts at more than their price. If the peanut vendor's revenue exceeds his costs this means he has created value for the community. He has taken valuable inputs and created a more valuable output, a net-valuable output, and in the process made a profit.

The Council adopting this fountain is of questionable value to the community because it cannot be known to generate net-value for residents. This is because, unlike the peanut vendor who has a revenue, the water fountain will have no revenue attached to it because of its "free" provision. If we were to imagine individuals were charged for its use, the annual revenue may come in at £1,000. If this was the case it would make a loss of about £2,000 a year. The Council would be taking £3,000 of inputs (cleaning services, water, repairs etc.) and turning them into £1,000 of outputs i.e. drinking water on the High Street. Clearly this would not create net-value for residents - instead it would create a welfare loss of about £2,000.

This may well be the predicament we will be in if the Council decides to adopt the fountain, and this would certainly not serve the greater good, in fact it would do the opposite. Of course, the fountain could generate revenue of £4,000, and thus be for the greater good of the community . But without charging we simply don't know. As Ludwig von Mises has observed, without costs and revenues, calculating whether provision is socially beneficial is near impossible. 

Given this truth of economics, it stands to reason the water fountain should be charged for to discern whether or not it is net-valuable to the community. An honesty box could be fitted to the amenity and if the revenue exceeds the £3,000 costs we would be able to say it is socially beneficial. Some will argue the honesty box won't work because people will steal from it and not put the 10p (or whatever) in. First, if emptied weekly (along with the cleaning) it wouldn't have much in it to have stolen. Second, honesty boxes in East Grinstead, such as the one on Hurst Farm Road for flowers, exist, and thus demonstrate people are honest.  

Only by charging for water can the Council determine whether the fountain is for the greater good. Non-charged provision is simply taking a shot in the dark.

Now given charging has been rejected by the Council already, I would argue the Council should not take a shot in the dark, because in due probability the fountain won't raise revenue in excess of its costs. Low footfall, poor accessibility, the fact people go to the High Street to drink coffee etc. all suggest it would be incapable of covering its costs i.e. of creating net-value. Given this would be to the detriment of the greater good it is clear the Council should not adopt the fountain, on its own political philosophy.

Now it may be objected the majority of the community want the fountain and for that reason it will advance the greater good, and thus should go ahead. This doesn't follow for numerous reasons. First, the Council have little idea of whether the majority do want a fountain or not. Second, even assuming the majority do want it, that doesn't show it's for the greater good. Consider 90% of East Grinstead's 11,519 taxpayers were prepared to pay 12p (the revenue maximising price), and the 10% nothing. This would create a hypothetical revenue for the fountain of £1,382.28 against £3,000 of costs: A loss of £1,617.72. Clearly, the community doesn't net-value the provision, even if the majority value it to some extent. We have thus established a majority supporting a service doesn't necessarily establish it is for the greater good.

The preceding has simply accepted the Council should do what is for the greater good, and shown even on such grounds the water fountain should not be adopted. Nonetheless, this political philosophy is itself deeply problematic for it doesn't respect the rights of the individual. Simply because a resource of yours may create more value in the hands of others, i.e. is for the greater good,  doesn't mean those others have a claim on it. This is because it is yours.

Imagine you're a single man who occasionally uses a pogo stick. A colleague at your work has a son who would really love to have one, but he can't afford such an item. His son would definitely get far more out of your pogo stick than you. Does this create an obligation on you to give the pogo stick over? No, because the mere fact it would be for the greater good need not concern you. Your own enjoyment of it, can rightly be judged as more important than that of your colleague's son. Sure, it would be nice of you to give it away, but your own enjoyment of it is not bad or wrongful.

Now imagine your colleague stole the pogo stick off you and rightly discerned such a transfer would be for the greater good. Would such an action be justified? No, because it's your pogo stick, and the greater good is irrelevant to the fact you have a right to your property. Equally, imagine Oxfam or the Salvation Army came and took a load of your spare furniture, and money you were going to use to buy a second car with. You object, and say "you can't do that its mine!" But, they point out its for the greater good helping the homeless and starving Africans. You still maintain its wrong for them to take your stuff.

By analogy, it is also wrong for the Council to take individuals' property, even if it is for the greater good. Thus, even if the fountain is for the greater good, taking 26p from everyone to finance it is wrong and should not go ahead. Here, it may be argued my reasoning is false because the Council taking 26p is not comparable to your colleague or Oxfam taking your stuff, because the Council is democratically elected. This is dubious. It makes no difference whatsoever that a majority of people may support Oxfam or your colleague taking your stuff, it's still wrong, and by the same reasoning so is the Council seizing 26p of your money for the water fountain. As Robert Nozick wrote:

`Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights).`

In conclusion, I have established adopting the repairs and maintenance for the water fountain is of questionable value to the community (and probably a net-cost), and even if it was of net-value it would be wrong to tax individuals to finance it. Instead of taxpayers being forced to pick up the bill, the water fountain ought to be financed by an honesty box. For only this solution ensures the net-value to the community can be known, and doesn't involve wrongly forcing individuals to pay for the provision.