Many municipalities apparently have decided, through their electoral process, to provide services to all of their citizenry, through secular means and without regard to those citizens’ ability to pay. These policies would reflect a general attitude that it is healthier, in some way, for the polity to let all citizens enjoy free library borrowing or public open-space recreation, without having to divide them by social or economic class, through “charity” v “pay” services.
If the citizens of aa municipality wish to combine their money, through taxes and elected oversight, to provide these services, they obviously believe that this method is actually superior than charity or a marketized system that has to provide a profit to someone right off the top. Perhaps it has turned out to be cheaper for them. In my own state, several municipalities have opted to return garbage pickup or senior services to local government, having found that privatization provided poorer service at a higher cost.
Luckily, people can vote with their feet. If paying less in municipal taxes, and then paying out-of-pocket for (formerly municipal) services, is what you prefer, there’s bound to be a place for you to live in this great country that will match your philosophy.
I am aware of the “vote with your feet” idea — and fully acknowledge the federalist argument. Self-government at its finest.
My argument was more in principle than as a criticism of a particular municipality.
SnakeDoc