In all of NH? Wow... I knew we had more trees than people but only 111 residents in NH? ;):cool:

Now, you know I'm talking about the forum members that have voted.

Now that you've explained it, I do. :)

Sorry but that's not a measurement of the number of resident voters and non-residents who wish to vote, but the number of respondents who answered "yes" or "no" when asked if non-resident tax payers should be allowed to vote.

There's 5361 registered members on the forum. At this time, 230 posters responded with a yes vote, and 116 posters have responded with a no vote. The combined number of respondents is less than 6.5% of the total registered members on this forum. In other words, it's not enough of a response on which you can base any trend at this point.

I would also wager that if this same poll had been posted in the winter months, when we have fewer seasonal posters active in the forum that your poll results would be quite different. :)

I hate to say this but I don't think most people have any idea of what they are voting on. I wish they did. They think if the selectmen or the planning board or the school board recommend it, it must be good for us. I would not vote if I didn't have a thorough understanding of what I am voting on.

You may be quite right tis but as you said, if you as a resident didn't have a thorough understanding of the issue you would not vote on it. There are many that would not be hindered by not having a thorough understanding.

My experience years ago was that my cousins in Wolfeboro knew the unpublished details of everything that happened in town and why they should vote yes or no on an issue. That may not be the case now for many.

Since I don't own property there I did not vote in the poll.

Just stumbled on this:

NO

If you own in more than one town, pick one as your residence and vote like it matters...because it does.

I appreciate the stewardship provided by the residents of my second home town.

I believe that they know best how to manage the town they have chosen as their residence.

CT is my current residence. In a few years I'll move to NH and make it my home. I can vote then.:D

Wow !Way to dig up an old topic from 2010.....:D

i think you should not be able to vote to elect officials, but be able to vote on matters that pertain to your property such as taxes, programs, and what not

So are you saying we should have two different voting days? One for non residents and one for residents? The non residents can come up on any weekend in July and cast their vote...oh wait Saturdays only.

You mus have known when you got your New Hampahire property that you were not allowed to vote on state and/or local matters. I have lived in several states and towns and none of them allowed nonresidents to vote on state issues or local issues out side of their main residency.

You may see this as not fair - Well life is not always fair! If you must you can sell the property which in spite of the poor real estate market would probably give you a very profitable return.

voting
 

No, you do not need two different voting days, but two seperate ballots one for residents and one for non residents. But what I see could be a different problem. Should my sister vote for our cottage? Should I be able to also vote? Perhaps it would be two different views:rolleye1:

I do not know, but I believe people should have a say when it comes to the taxes, or towns they own property in. you could do absentee ballots or early voting, just like they are doing now

I do not wish to amend voting for representatives in city or state offices being a 2nd home owner, but I should be able to voice and vote my opinion on something that directly effects me

just my two cents, take it or leave it

Not complaining and yes i Knew it was this way buying into a second property. It is what it is and I am willing to accept this fact, just saying it almost seems unconstitution not to be able to vote on things that directly effect me

Taxes
 

What would you all say if the town that you are a non-resident passes a bylaw that says
"if you are a non-resident your tax rate will be X and if you are a resident your tax rate will be a lot less than X"
Now would you think that non-residents should have a vote?

Interesting question however such a "bylaw" would be illegal in NH. Property taxation in governed by NH state laws and rules.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> Just for entertainment purposes let me ask a question or two, since you live in Boston you would not get the local PTV channels to watch any meetings. How would you get the information? Read the minutes of all the boards? Newspapers do have a lot of information but not enough I don't think. The town hall is closed on weekends so you would need to rely on your neighbors? Oh wait they are weekender's too! Some properties are inherited, so like John B stated who gets to vote for the family? Most (lakefront, MA residents) property owners think they pay too much to begin with. Do you real think anything that would raise taxes they would vote for?
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->

I remember when they voted in the 3% sales tax. They are known for raising taxes, that is why I left years ago,

My biggest issue with not having a say is that we pay the same taxes as a resident and can't we still have to pay ad a Non resident when registering boats, snowmobiles and other recreational veichles.

VOTE Where you live.....simple! WHY do "visitors" want to own everything?

Voting
 

So different priorities and perspective are the reasons a lake area property tax paying person should not be allowed a vote? I think not. I recall discussing with my wife how our real estate taxes paid in two states, where funding the construction of four schools. We are in favor of all these improvements. I would however appreciate the right to vote in both locations.

Toys
 

That is a different subject then taxes but one I totally agree with.
States should just throw out the resident none-resident registration fee's and have one flat fee.
In Maine I've seen first hand that none-residents appreciate the trails and all that is done to keep them up, more than residents do.
This is evident by the people you see show up when work needs to be done and the majority are none-residents, many like us having to drive 4+ hours and paying over $100 in fuel to make the round trip.
Maine has chosen to keep their resident snowmobile and ATV registrations at less then HALF of what none-residents pay and the MSA supports this and in fact advocates for keeping it this way.
As a tax paying none-resident who has done everything to support clubs except drive a groomer I have a serious problem with this.
So I've contacted the MSA and let them know that until something is done I will pay my Maine property taxes and my $89 registration while residents pay $43, but I do no more. No more joining a club, no more dropping money in the trail fund jar and not one hour of services.
The higher ups who make these decisions need to realize that the people who don't live where they ride as a whole appreciate and are willing to help more then the residents are.:confused:

But other then that I do not think none-residents should be allowed to vote in local elections.

Best read up on this one.

This did go to the NH Supreme Court.
It is six months and a day or similiar wording.

This has nothing to do with a new person moving to NH, registering to vote, and voting.

Registering to vote
 

The form requires a signed statement to the following:

See:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../654/654-7.htm

I've resigned myself to the fact that I don't have a say to the crazy spending that takes place in Moultonborough. The only saving grace is there's enough valuation there to take some of the sting out of it.

I would love to see what the Moultonborough budgets would look like if the town had to survive on the resident tax revenue. I'm pretty sure town meeting would be a blast if the tax rates were similar to what they are in many of the towns around the state.

I understand that a portion of the spending is variable because of the summer influx but that has also been a crutch many of the departments use to increase their coffers (the Taj comes immediately to mind) and can't even be used as an excuse for the pretty high school district costs.

Conflict of interest
 

It just wouldn't work because the non-resident is always going to vote down town expenses that he does not utilize. The biggest being the school system. It is typically the largest budget item and one that the non-resident doesn't use in any way, so he will vote against any expenditure for it.

I don't agree. Using your logic, any resident of the town without kids or grandkids of school age or under will always vote against education spending.

Maybe I'm being too idealistic, but I think it's in everyone's interest to have well-educated citizens, no matter where that education is obtained. If I was allowed to vote in local elections as a non-resident, I would absolutely support local education, even if my family didn't "utilize" it.

NH HB 1161 was introduced on January 4th, 2012 for an act establishing a committee to study permitting nonresident property owners to vote in local elections. The bill was sponsored by House Representative Mark Warden (r) Hillsborough.

Status: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Status Date: 2/8/2012
Current Committee: ELECTION LAW
Committee of Referral: ELECTION LAW
Date Introduced: 1/4/2012
Due out of Committee: 2/23/2012
Floor Date: 2/8/2012

http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_sta...nyear=2012&q=1

States can not restrict your right to travel
 

One of your rights to travel freely about these United States is to call any State your home (domicle or residence) at any time you choose. Restrictions of time spent in the state have mostly been removed from state law. Wording above is so vague that I could spend as little as a day in New Hampsire and still be a legal voter. I intend to call NH my residence and will spend about 5 months there. I own property in another state and will spend some of the remaining time there. I also plan to spend several months in rented property in a warm part of the world. I will register my vehicles along with registering to vote in NH. If all the states had a rule that I had to live in their state for 6 months and a day I would be a man without a residence. Of course I can only have 1 residence at a time.
As to voting where you own property that could get out of hand with many people owning multiple properties in many states. How could the property owner possibly be informed. However, in areas with high out of state ownership such as the lakes region, the residents and elected officials
need to keep in mind that the non residents are helping to maintain their road, pay their teachers etc. When the opportunity to give something to the non resident taxpayer arises they should jump at the opportunity. In Meredith we Island residents finally got a new dock at Cattle landing. While we are grateful, funding for this dock was voted down by the residents many times over the last 20 years. Why? Because they could. A request to set aside some puplic dock space for Island residents was dismissed out of hand as a land owner choice issue by the council. They felt it would be unfair to treat Island property owners (sub. non-resident) different from residents by giving them preference to part of the town owned docks. ARE THEY KIDDING? Is that not what they do for their residents now vs the non resident taxpayer?

Non-Residents can attend town meetings & hearings and voice thier opinion even if they cannot vote! The problem with letting non-resident taxpayers vote in local elections is that non-residents do not neccesarily have the towns best interest at stake.

For example if you live in Tewksbury, MA you might have voted for the new High School (and subsequent tax increase) because your kids may attend that school or for some other reason it benefits you to do so. So you are ok with the extra tax burden.

Your second home is located up here in Gilford, most Non-Residents would probably vote not to build a new high school (and associated tax increase) because it has NO benefit to them whatsoever!

The bottom line is this.... if you want to vote up here then move up here! make this your PRIMARY residence.

Woodsy

I don't agree. While some residents without kids will want to have good schools because it increases their property value and other values, I think that some residents without kids will tend to vote against school expenses. Either way they are counter balanced by the residents that do have kids. All non-residents don't have kids attending the schools so they will always side to the "against" side. And because the non-residents are a fairly large number they would skew the numbers to the against side considerably.

Well, then I guess that we'll agree to disagree. My main objection is with your use of the word "always," as in "All non-residents don't have kids attending the schools so they will always side to the "against" side." Using absolutes in any argument can be tricky, and if I were allowed to vote in a local election as a non-resident, I would not "always" vote against school expenses. Who knows, maybe I'm the one exception to your rule, but I doubt it.

As I mentioned earlier, perhaps I'm too idealistic, but I like to think that voting for or against stuff that takes taxpayer dollars isn't always about the individual taxpayer's immediate bottom line; it's also about what you get, as a citizen, and not directly, for the money spent. Good schools and well-educated kids are a good thing for everyone, not just the parents and families of the school kids. If you're not homeless, do you automatically vote against spending tax dollars on homeless shelters and other assistance? If you don't ever use the town parks and recreation facilities, do you always vote to defund those programs? I hope not, because otherwise, why live in a community?

I was recently talking to a family member of mine who has owned waterfront in Wolfeboro since the late 60s. They attended a town meeting and was insulted by the fact whoever it was from the town that was speaking referred to the water front owners as "cash cows". Sure you can sell and move on, but that's not the point.

"Cash Cows" are a product, business, etc, that generates a continuous flow of money or a high proportion of overall profits.

Wolfeboro gets @70% of it operating revenue from "water front" property owners.

I would say that the term "Cash Cows" that was used by someone at the "town meeting" was/is pretty accurate.

From what I've been told Gilford is the same way. Most of their tax money comes from waterfront homes.

GREAT answer.

Think of a situation: a Cambridge, MA business owner, the business owns the real estate in Cambridge which houses the business, and the owner resides and owns his/her residence in Arlington, nearby. He can vote in only ONE community!

Same is true for second homeowners between Lakes Region vacation property and another State. Only one is the residence where you vote!

However, I believe a UNH student from MA can now vote in NH. Wasn't this a latest NH Supreme Court decision or lower court?

I dont think this situation would work, as a business, you cannot vote, only individuals can vote.

I do not know how to do it, but there needs to be some say. I am all for town meetings, but because I do not vote for the people running the meetings non resident cares and concerns falls on deaf ears a lot

Oh yes, but that's different :rolleye2: And of course that student can vote in Mass. too.... My son attends UMaine, and voted absentee. He is not going to vote in Maine also. That's the way it's SUPPOSED to work.

I think we all understand the reason for the particular court's decision and of course we also know who most students are going to vote for this election. 'Nuff said.