As Skip mentioned there are RVers roving the country that do not have permanent residences. An estimated 100,000 citizens, mostly retired, consider their motor home or trailer to be their domicile. They consider themselves to have "mobile domiciles".

Therefore when they get a hook up at a RV park or park in a friend or relatives driveway they consider themselves instant residence of that community, and entitled to vote immediately.

Very simple solution
 

For those who are bothered by paying NH property taxes simply don't buy property in New Hampshire or sell the property you have. The taxes, AND the voting rights, have worked this way for quite a while now. My guess would be that the majority of people that have purchased land have done so within the last 50 years and the same tax and voting structure existed then. Yes, as property values have increased the taxes have gone up as well but you don't hear people complaining that the property they bought for a $200K twenty years ago is worth over $1,000K today. If the property tax bugs you so much, buy a house on one of the lakes in Maine. It's very nice there as well. You will pay some property tax but probably not as much. And you won't get to vote in local elections there either. You will also have to pay sales tax on anything you buy there. Plus when you sell your Maine house you will probably have to pay Maine capital gains tax. But it's not a perfect world, perfect defined as "someone else pays all the taxes, not me".

This thread is about whether or not Non Resident tax payers should have the right to vote. I don't believe it makes any referance to people, resident or not, being bothered with having to pay property taxes !
Your post is coming in from somewhere way out in left field.

I guess we are in left field....
 

Early on in this thread you are the one that ties the right to vote with paying property taxes:

And then you make this statement:

Explanation?

Thank you BI, Skip, and AW. I kinda knew it would be illegal to vote in NH, but you all have confirmed it. You guys and girl are the best. As for other posters who criticize folks that are upset that we non-resident taxpayers would like to have a voice in how our tax dollars are spent..... Our home was built over 100 years ago and we have inherited the home. We have gone through expensive legal expenses to set up a trust to make sure that that cottage will never fall into dissrepair or be SOLD. So despite the notion that you think we will profit from its sale some day,,,, check back when the court system of the United States is no longer in effect...Hopefully that will be a day I never see..

Yes I did ! I do firmly believe that paying property taxes should give a "taxpayer" the right to have a say in Who spends those tax dollars and How !! After all, it Is There money. Isn't it ?
Where in any of my posts on this thread do I make referance to being bothered by "having to pay property taxes" ??
One thing doesn't even come close to meaning the other. I am at a loss to even understand how any person can make a correlation between the two.
Are you and Yankee smoking the same illegal substance ? :)

Great idea! Own property in fifty states, pay property taxes on them, and vote 50 times in 50 different places!!!

Could you tell us what you are smoking?

I usually play right field
 

The reality is that if the property taxes were a lot lower the majority of property owners wouldn't care if they could vote in local elections. They would only be interested in voting to be able to control spending and thereby lower their taxes. Occasional summer residents would have little interest in schools, winter issues, libraries, social programs, etc. Non resident interest is driven by the level of spending and the associated taxes.

You believe that paying taxes should give you the privilege of voting but that has never been the case. Residency and citizenship always controls voting rights. If you live in the USA and are a citizen you vote in US elections not Canadian elections, even if you have interests in Canada that causes you to pay taxes in Canada. If you live in New York you vote in New York, not in Massachusetts, even if you work in Massachusetts and pay income tax there. The same carries through to the town level. Where you live is where you have voting rights and you can only reside in one place at a time.

There is sense in this because it is the people who live in an area that are most impacted by laws in that area. Suppose for example that Moultonborough, that has a large non resident population, was controlled by the votes of those non residents. They might gut school programs, snow plowing budgets, and other programs that they don't find of personal value.

Further, if money buys the vote, as you are proposing, shouldn't more money buy a bigger vote? If I pay 10 times the property tax shouldn't I get 10 times the votes of someone else? How about big companies? They pay big property taxes in the town. Shouldn't they get a big vote as well?

I would agree that my last post didn't directly answer the question posed about voting rights. Instead I answered the real question behind the question, i.e the disatisfaction with the level of property taxes paid. Mark, are you telling me you would like the right to vote here to be able to work on improving NH schools or the social support programs in the towns?:D

Wait until 2011
 

The law is clear, but in Moultonborough, it creates some special problems. First, something like 70% of the property valuation is shoreline property and less (probably well less) than 20% of the voters live on the lake. This means a large majority of the tax revenue comes from nonvoters.

The second problem is that of the voting 20% that do live on the lake, many (maybe half) are in Florida during the town meeting in March, where there is no absentee balloting. There is a lopsided balance between funders and spenders. Many issues are decided by voters who are also town employees, because they show up in sufficient numbers to swing the vote their way.

For the most part, Moultonborough is a conservatively fiscal town, but the state has designated it a “donor town” in 2011, to provide schooling welfare funds to poorer towns. The new donor tax alone will be about $1.25 per thousand in 2011, or a $1250 increase for a million dollar home. Ouch!

The recent controversy is boiling because an appraisal firm from Mass raised the valuation of most shoreline properties this year, while decreasing many non-shoreline ones. Their justification was not compelling and the process was not transparent. The law makes the tax situation unbalanced as it is. It appears as if non-voters are being taken advantage of, and are upset there is no apparent recourse, other than to suck it up. :(

It will be interesting to see how those on this forum, who are dead set against, and willing to deny others the right to have a say (yes I know the laws) in how their money gets spent, start whinning when the tables are turned and they have to start paying more taxes without having any say in how the money gets spent. :laugh:

Buy property in any other state in this country and go complain that they won't let you vote either. This system has been in place for quite some time. You were aware before you bought and are aware now, also the next buyer will be aware as well, unless they decide to live here fulltime. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly certain you are not alone, in not being able to vote as a non-resident property owner anywhere in this country.

IMO, there is another reason why this bothers you so much now. If it bothered you this much when you purchased the property I would think you would have passed, given your attitude on the situation. I have a thought, but am not going to make any assumptions on your situation.

The members of this forum do not make the rules on whether or not you can vote as a non-resident property owner. Some of us just look at things differently than others.

For instance, I cannot afford waterfront property on Lake Winnipesaukee. I have to use a public means of access to enjoy the lake. In my mind you are fortunate that you have a private domain to enjoy the lake without having to deal with another soul, if you so choose. That is something that comes at a price.

Seriously, count your blessings and be thankful for what you have and quit whining. This is the number one reason why many locals could care less what folks from out of state have to say. Change, Change, Change!!!

Residency
 

The test of voter eligibility is residency, not property ownership. If a non-resident wants to vote in any jurisdiction he must become a resident, not simply a taxpayer, of that jurisdiction. And one cannot be a resident of more than one jurisdiction. It's that simple, imo.

Suppose one (is fortunate enough) to own multiple properties in several states. Would proponents grant voting rights to that person in the several states? If that sounds ridiculous it's because it is.

In my case, being a snowbird, I faced this dilemma years ago and decided to declare NH my place of residence. I can vote here but not in Florida also. My proof of residency is my NH drivers license or another state issued ID. I can have only one of them, too.

While I can understand anyone's frustration with NH's property based tax system, because I am also hit hard by its unfairness, changing voter residency requirements is not the solution to the problem.

Neither can I !!!!!!! See what happens when you assume !
If you will take the time to go back and read post #9 you will see that I clearly state that I am a year round resident and not seasonal and just so you know and don't assume wrong again. I do not own waterfront property. I don't even live near the lake. I do not even use the lake. I am just a normal working stiff who spends his time working to pay my bills, taxes included. Fortunatly I am one of those who does get a say in how my property taxes get spent. :)

First, I apologize for making an assumption and for forgetting what was written back at the beginning of the thread.

But,
You need to sit down and think long and hard about what you are fighting for. Think about the affects of being able to vote anywhere you want, as you can find property for under 5K in just about any town in this country that will satisfy a tax payment for residency type of program.

This conversation just got really confusing to me. I do not get where you are coming from at all, don't take offense to that.

I am in agreement
 

The school issue has been used to attempt to slam a broad based income tax down New Hampshire's throat, as has been done in many other states (that all have income,sales, AND a fairly high property tax now). The donor mechanism is the legislatures ham handed attempt to avoid that. I live in Moultonborough and agree that the latest assessment is unbelievable in light of current economic conditions. Perhaps it's time for a class action lawsuit against Vision assessments to assure fairness and transparency. I have no problem paying my fair share of taxes based on the reasonable assessment of my property but I have had 2 assessments done of my property last year and the town valuation comes in at over $150K over both of them. That is just ridiculous.

But in spite of all that, who gets the right to vote still should remain determined by residency.

Thanks Jeff....
 

I just wanted to thank you for your continued even-handed and common sense posts related to this subject! :)

My reading here is that this subject has been beaten to death. A forum can not change laws!
To me, and other posts, it's perfect sense that one votes in the jurisdiction of residence - property owner or a tenant..... Residence is the key!

Anyone can attend a city council meeting or town meeting! If one desires to speak to an issue, ask and be recognized by the chair after identifying oneself as whatever: resident & voter, tenant, property owner, etc.. That simple!
Roberts Rules!

Agree with residency but not about forum
 

I agree that a forum has no legal power BUT a forum is where ideas are brought out and discussed. A town meeting is a poor place to discuss ideas simply because there is not enough time and not everyone who has an interest can attend. Further, minds are often made up before town meetings. In a forum, people can float whatever questions and ideas they want and others can respond. In addition, a forum environment allows people time to consider what is said and what response is given. On some topics that matter to me I have spent a couple hours considering the issue, researching information, and crafting a reply. This is very unlikely to happen in a meeting because of time constraints and the nervousness of "being in the spotlight". Many people with good ideas may be uncomfortable or unwilling to speak in a meeting. People come up with all sorts of viewpoints and until they are tested in a discussion forum of some type they won't see the strengths and weaknesses of their ideas. Forum discussion allows a concept to be tempered into a better final form that might then be presented at a meeting or to realize the idea may not have merit.

I'm not sure that some of these discussions fit well on the Winni forum because they can, regrettably, become contentious and that distracts from the main purpose of the website. Don has given us considerable leeway in some of these discussions and I appreciate that. So I say, respectfully, discuss on.

Proportional Taxes
 

I have no problem paying taxes on my summer residence but, either let me vote on how the money is spent or let the portion of the population that uses the majority of the services pay thier proportional share.

I spend maybe a total of 50 days at my summer residence. Not only am I part time resident that doesn't send my kids to the local school, use the library, dump, etc. I live on an island so I don't have roads to plow and the fire department will only be successful in saving the property next to mine if I have a fire. Why am I carrying the same or greater load than the family that lives here full time?

To me, it comes down to one thing - a portion of the full time residents of NH (I'll admit, not all of them) want someone else to foot the bill. "No income tax!" "No sales tax!" Instead, "let's put a surtax on people's vacation home most of them are from out of state." Let's rasie the waterfront property valuations and lower the inland valuations. Most of the waterfront people are from out of state." "Let's let other towns in the state pay for schooling my children."

Some one once said, "There is no free lunch." I gues the message missed the granit state. One day this chicken will come home to roost!

I remember the expression...
"There is nothing fair about taxes, just some taxes are less fair than others."

AW, I really enjoyed the political incorrectness of our for fathers that you posted.

Amended 1903 to provide that in order to vote or be eligible for office a person must be able to read the English language and to write.

That's a copy and paste from the State's website... I also found it interesting but then it was in keeping of the national attitudes of the times. You can almost see the time line of the amendments to the US Constitution along with the NH State Constitution's amendments.

Interesting that the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment was just a week or so ago. Women haven't been allowed to vote in this country for 100 years yet but our country is 234 years old.

In Gilford ~48% of the taxes are from NRTP
 

Folks,

I just did a quick EXCEL on the 2009 assessors data base for the town of Gilford. A whopping 48% of the taxes come from non resident taxpayers...who can't vote. So I guess when the locals vote to spend money its basically half price to them!

Ms Merge

Value
 

You are paying based on value, like the valuation process or not. Putting the valuations aside (because we all know that the only way to truly know what your house is worth is to sell it), your tax rate is not based on the level of service you receive or use but instead on the level that is available. It is no different than the elderly folks that live in the suburbs surrounding Boston, they have no kids in school but are paying for new schools (like Newton's $197M monstrosity).

The issue is that the real big guy in the sky is not going to create any new waterfront on Winnipesaukee. Frankly, I think we will see more and more people priced off the lake so that eventually only the uber-rich will be able to afford to do so. It is really no different than what has happened to many NH residents who once owned waterfront property.

You are right though, we don't want an income tax or a sales tax.

I beg to differ.

When your taxes go up 5%, so do mine. When Joe Doe from CT, who owns a lovely piece of real estate I can only dream of owning, sees a 5% increase in his tax bill, so do I. My 5% increase has as much of an impact on me, even though my taxes may only be $2,000/year, as it does on Joe Doe who pays $200,000/year in taxes. Simply put: an increase is an increase.

As someone who serves on a local town budget committee and school board, who owns a business and a home, believe me when I say the last thing I want to see - especially in this horrible economy - is a tax increase of any kind. I would consider a well-justified increase but nonetheless, I don't welcome it like you may think. I've never heard anyone say, "Hey, lets run up a big budget this year; the non-voting tax payers can't do a thing about it!" I do hear the people who say, "My husband's been laid off and we only have one income," or "My social security checks are getting smaller this year." I get it. I really do. It's not "party central" like you think it is when it comes to budgeting....

The bottom line is that we need to stop gov't from thinking that taxpayer money is a bottomless pit that they can continually draw from. Cut spending! Stop thinking that the waterfront owner and the non-waterfront owner can continue to fund an unlimited number of programs.

Please forgive me for also responding to this - I don't want to seem like a "know it all" but I have sat through four years - going on five - of the budget process for both the school districts and the town budget for Alton. This will be my first year as a board member. I've had four years to watch and learn, as I was a recording secretary before I ran for office and was elected. I can't speak for other towns but I do know that our town employees have forgone raises or cost of living increases, presented a level-funded budget, etc. Our schools have cut spending in numerous ways - from supplies, to going in on a co-op like buying situation with other towns for oil, to getting grants, and coming in last year with a budget at almost -6% less than the previous year's budget. It's a strange reality when your default budget is MORE than your proposed budget that's on the ballot!

Now, keep in mind, this is small town government - the local of the local... not the state level of the budget...

I will admit I don't know much about the state budget. That's one budget session I'd be interested in attending. We assume there's fat in the budget but do we know that for certain? Really, how much do we pay attention to what happens beyond our local control? Again, I admit that's an area I know very little about... but I know that on our local level the budget is reviewed by many people, cut, re-cut, and well justified before it's brought to the voters in March.

Ultimately, the real power is executed at voting time. That sorta brings us full-circle, doesn't it?

Politicians act according to their nature
 

I think the town of Alton must be the exception rather than the rule if the budget has been controlled as you indicate. However, the problem is that spending should be limited at ALL times, not just when the economy is slow because spending committed to in the fat times is still around when things slow down. It is too easy for government officials to see "need" for one thing or another and I would be the first to say that the need may be real BUT we simply cannot afford to do all "good" things. Politicians, by wanting to help and by the pressure of the election process to provide good will among the voters are driven to spend money with limited concern for long term consequences or viability of such spending. The only real solution to to keep government OUT of as much as possible. If it isn't government's responsibility to fix something then they can't spend money on it. Unfortunately, the population at large has a credit card mentality and thinks the bill will never come due. As you say, ultimately the power rests with the voters. However they don't show up to vote and they keep passing bloated budgets. If people were really fed up with the spending you would see a wave of town budgets being defeated but that happens only occasionally. Frankly people have become dumb and lazy. They have left it to the politicians to "take care of things" and the politicians have a HORRIBLE track record with most things they do. We probably have the government we deserve because we have been careless and foolish as an electorate.

As to the original topic, I worked in Mass most of my career but lived in NH and paid 6% income tax to Mass, far more $$$ than I pay in property tax. Mass spends money like a drunken sailor on LOTS of stuff that I would never receive benefit from and would not support and yet I got no vote in Mass either. I can't think of a single tax where it entitles someone to voting privileges no matter how unfair or significant the tax is. I could have found a job in NH but Mass has a wider variety of opportunity so I worked there and paid the tax, without a right to vote. The same is true for property. NH property is apparently attractive enough to bid the prices up to the level they have reached even with the existing property tax burden and no vote in the local government. If the system was so onerous people would not be buying up here and people wouldn't be saddled with million dollar properties.

Gilford is no Alton
 

Folks,
Alton does seem to be the exception versus the rule. Look at the tax rate. Alton is uner $12 and Gilford is over $17. I read the other day that Alton bought Gilford's old fire breathing apparatus after the Gilford voters voted to buy new equipment (recommended by the Selectman 3-0 and Budget Committee 8-1). So if its good enough for Alton why was it not good enough for Gilford? This information never seems to make it to the ballot. When its recommended you think that it is a NEED versus a want.

My comments about the locals paying half is meant to illustrate that the total cost of a budget item (like the school budget) is spread out over all the taxpayers. In Gilford's case 48% can't vote on the budgeted item even though they have to pay for it. So opposition is going to likely be much less.

As far as the non resident taxpayer accepting the taxes because they are 'rich' and own million dollar waterfront property. I will tell you this those days are coming to an end. Demographically the boomers are beginning to retire. Property taxes (especially in Gilford) will and have begun to dominate personal budgets. Folks can no longer justify the property taxes. Retirement investments and savings are in the tank. As we have seen in Gilford waterfront properties will start to sell BELOW assessed value and thus the downward spiral starts.

Kudo's to Alton for REDUCING their budget. In Gilford they only talk about zero increase....and say that cuts would hurt the town employees. My response is that the citizen/taxpayer must come first. Once the local officials prioritize the public employee OVER the citizen taxpayer I think we are in trouble. The public sector must respond just as the private sector has. The private sector prioritizes the CUSTOMER, they have to thats where the money comes from, over its employees and in the public sector we must prioritize the CITIZEN/TAXPAYER and their welfare over the pay, benefits and retirement of the public employee. The public sector, like the private sector, is employed at free will. If they don't like it and can get a better deal elsewhere they are free to go.

Ms Merge

Good post Ms. M. I totally agree with you. I think taxpayers are reaching the breaking point and the government needs to stop spending.

As a great man once said " The goverment that governs least, governs best". T. Jefferson.

You note that the Town employees had forgone raises, can the same be said for teachers?

No, they did not, but the two proposed contracts failed in March and have been renegoiated, to come before the voters for a decision this fall. Currently, the teachers' contracts have expired. (Keep in mind we have two school districts in our town.) I may be mistaken, but I don't think that the two proposed contracts, if they pass, would have an increase of one or two cents (that's pennies - not percent) on the tax rate.

The schools have returned a sizable amount of unencumbered funds over the past few years. We've had budget freezes for two years in a row and last year found our energy costs (and a few other budget line items) came in lower than we'd anticipated simply due to market shifts or cost savings we were able to make.

Speaking from my own point of view and as a parent with two children in the school system, the teachers, staff, and employees at the school go above and beyond to give back to the community. From raising money, supplies, and food for the Alton Food Pantry, donating time and materials to landscaping projects around the school, winter coat drives, building dugouts (donated time, materials, and labor), writing for grants, and much, much more, there's a lot that is done that isn't in folks general job description. It's not difficult to see the impact on the community - and it's a positive impact on the students, as well. The parents are also a big part of these efforts, of course. The sense of community is something special we have at our schools.

Non resident taxpayers
 

IN some NH towns there are more non resident taxpayers so they are paying taxes without representation and the residnets are really being subsized by the seasonal residents and inreality are not paying their share of the amenities that they have voted
A numer of folks make NH their legal residence are here for 6 months and day and do not vote or even have an interest in local government unles stheir taxes are increased substantially

Residency requirements...
 

Although we've covered this subject in numerous threads, just a couple of quick corrections for anyone new.

There is no such thing in New Hampshire as a "6 months and a day" rule for residency. You can be a resident of NH and never spend a day here, as long as you call nowhere else home. You also can become a resident the day you move here, and vote on that same date.

Their is no denial of rights to a non-resident that owns property here but cannot vote here. The Courts have held that every citizen has a right to vote, but that right only extends to that person's place of residency. It has nothing to do with, or is tied to, land ownership.

And while I can appreciate and understand the angst of property tax paying non-residents I can pretty well assure them that nothing is going to change in reference to that in this State anytime soon. It has been this way for decades. Remember, while it is an obvious concern to waterfront property owners particularly in the Lakes region with several communities, it is not an issue in most of the rest of the State.

Finally it is interesting to me that down here on the seacoast we have many valuable homes as well, populating the ocean and many of the bays, rivers and inlets. Many of these homes are owned by non-residents and in a few communities they make up a great percentage of the tax base. However you do not here the protests down here like you do from some in the Lakes region.

Interesting.....I have an idea why but I will defer the speculation to others for now.

If you don't like it, why do you stay as a non resident. Wherever you file your federal income tax is your legal residence. Try enrolling as in-state residence at any state run school, ie, UNH, UCONN, UMASS etc.

After reading posts by Argie's Wife and some others it seems to me that residents have a much greater grasp and understanding of the workings of a town and it's people, it's real financial needs, it's operation, it's social needs and much more. Residents vote based on that knowledge. I suspect non residents would vote based on how it would affect the tax on their vacation property, I know I probably would. It doesn't seem a decision based only on tax rate would be good for the wellbeing of a town as a whole. JMHO.

What is your idea, my speculating capabilities are very poor?

I read it as your speculating powers are so great that he need not assist!

228 non residents of NH and 111 residents of NH Guess how they are voting?