According to the tenth amendment to the US Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." When one considers this, the array of federal programs and bureaucratic mandates is both mind boggling and repulsive.

In fact, we may be tempted to storm the various legislative halls of our cities and towns around the country, demanding that they stop their suckling on the teats of big government. We may find, however, that in our protesting we are seen as no more than Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

Whereas the City of Lafayette has received CDBG (Community Development Black Grants) from the Department of Housing and Urban Development every year since 1975, with an average grant amount of 1.5 million dollars, the citizens of our community have reasonable cause to be upset. Whereas, the City of Lafayette as already applied for and been awarded over $175,000 additional grant money from the infamous $780 billion dollar "stimulus package", we have reason for outrage.

First, the projects for which these funds are allocated will not bring economic stability to our community. The projects being funded by this additional grant money are:
$100,000 Energy Efficiency Incentive Program
$ 22,610 Sidewalk and curb Replacements in low/moderate income areas
$ 9,000 Handicap ramp installation at city hall annex building
$ 26,322 Public Services (housing case management) and . . .
$ 17,548 Administration and Planning

Furthermore, the grant application claims that these projects will create or retain just over 20 full-time, permanent jobs. The ramp and sidewalks may, admittedly, help retain some jobs for a time. But seriously, how long will it take to build a ramp and some sidewalks? There is nothing in these projects to guarantee "permanency" to the jobs, nothing to actually spur the economy so that the private sector generates additional projects to create and retain jobs.

Secondly, and more importantly, these federal funds are going to be spent on projects that local citizens and local government bear the responsibility of funding. If the citizens of Lafayette cannot afford to build a ramp for the disabled to access city offices, cuts should be made elsewhere in the city budget. If we cannot afford to build sidewalks in our neighborhoods then we bear the burden and consequence of our own decisions. Perhaps a local tax of some sort could be levied for that purpose - but at least it would be local.

The businesses that receive funds from the energy efficiency portion of the grant need to bear the cost of making themselves energy efficient. The free market is built on profit. If a business wants to waste it's resources on utility bills and damage it's own profitability that is their own choice. If another wants wants to improve their efficiency and thereby increase their long term profitability, that is their choice as well. In a free market, that is how things work. This portion of the CDBG is undermining the very principle of a free market.

In a related matter, the businesses that accept money in the energy efficiency program must agree to hire new employees with certain conditions. As the grant application states: "The business owner must be willing to provide low to moderate income jobs and comply with all ARRA requirements." It would seem that the businesses must create low/moderate income jobs - what happens if a business wants to create moderate/high income jobs? Would they be prevented from doing so?

Finally, what can be seen so clearly in the above energy efficiency program but is also insidiously included in all CDBG grant money (even in the concept of the CDBG itself) is the tentacles of federal government reaching into the local community. Or, as the framers of the Constitution may have said, powers reserved to the states are being exercised by the federal government. That is a form of tyranny!

While all this may make our blood boil, boiling blood does little to induce sound reason. Therefore I propose that since the grant has already been applied for and approved we let it be, though we may contact our respective city council members to express our displeasure and put them on notice that they are being watched for the next election.

I further propose that we monitor the schedule of the grant application process for next year. In February the city will solicit input and proposals for funding. In March an action plan and recommendations will be drafted. These will provide two wonderful opportunities to put a stop on the whole grant process and reverse the flow of power from the federal government back to the citizens. April and May of each year are scheduled for public comment and getting approval from the city council for the program. April should be a well attended meeting with plenty of public comment, and once again the members of the city council forewarned of the consequences of their decision when they vote in May on whether to approve the program for another year.

I believe this process, though slower and more deliberative, will accomplish more than simply expressing outrage at what has already happened. I believe it to be more constructive and more conducive to future dialogue. I also believe it will help us maintain and perhaps even garner greater public support for what we are trying to accomplish.