Should Non Resident Tax Payers vote?

[Yankee]

NH law requires that a person be a citizen before being allowed to vote. Been that way for 200+ years, and it's not going to change anytime soon.

I find the elitist arrogance of out of staters absolutely astounding. They knew before they bought property that they would be subject to NH law. Now they not only want to vote in their own state but here as well. Tall about having your cake and eating it too! To think that they believe that they have the right to vote(yes, voting is a right!) in a town and state that they don't live in is astounding indeed. Their indifference for our state's constitution is remarkable and unjustifiable.

Using their logic, if I worked in Mass. and lived in NH, should I have the right to vote in Mass? I would say yes, absolutely.

Simply ludicrous.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Yankee

NH law requires that a person be a citizen before being allowed to vote. Been that way for 200+ years, and it's not going to change anytime soon.

I find the elitist arrogance of out of staters absolutely astounding. They knew before they bought property that they would be subject to NH law. Now they not only want to vote in their own state but here as well. Tall about having your cake and eating it too! To think that they believe that they have the right to vote(yes, voting is a right!) in a town and state that they don't live in is astounding indeed. Their indifference for our state's constitution is remarkable and unjustifiable.

Using their logic, if I worked in Mass. and lived in NH, should I have the right to vote in Mass? I would say yes, absolutely.

Simply ludicrous.

I'm sorry but New Hampshire law only requires that you not be registered to vote somewhere else in order to vote here. If you are in New Hampshire on election day and you are not registered somewhere else then you have a right to vote in NH.

I double checked this with the Secretary of States office a couple of years ago.

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm sorry but New Hampshire law only requires that you not be registered to vote somewhere else in order to vote here. If you are in New Hampshire on election day and you are not registered somewhere else then you have a right to vote in NH.

I double checked this with the Secretary of States office a couple of years ago.

As much as I hate to banter with you and your misguided view of just about everything:

To be accurate, the person must be a resident. Which is defined as:

A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there.

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by Yankee

NH law requires that a person be a citizen before being allowed to vote. Been that way for 200+ years, and it's not going to change anytime soon.

I find the elitist arrogance of out of staters absolutely astounding. They knew before they bought property that they would be subject to NH law. Now they not only want to vote in their own state but here as well. Tall about having your cake and eating it too! To think that they believe that they have the right to vote(yes, voting is a right!) in a town and state that they don't live in is astounding indeed. Their indifference for our state's constitution is remarkable and unjustifiable.


Using their logic, if I worked in Mass. and lived in NH, should I have the right to vote in Mass? I would say yes, absolutely.

Simply ludicrous.

So, just how do you define the word "Live" ? This is how the Merrium Webster dictionary defines it.


Main Entry: 1live
Pronunciation: \ˈliv\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lived; liv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English libban; akin to Old High German lebēn to live
Date: before 12th century
intransitive verb
1 : to be alive : have the life of an animal or plant
2 : to continue alive
3 : to maintain oneself : subsist
4 a : to occupy a home : dwell b : to be located or stored
5 : to attain eternal life
6 : to conduct or pass one's life
7 : to remain in human memory or record
8 : to have a life rich in experience
9 : cohabit
transitive verb
1 : to pass through or spend the duration of
2 : act out, practice —often used with out
3 : to exhibit vigor, gusto, or enthusiasm in
4 a : to experience firsthand b : to be thoroughly absorbed by or involved with

— live it up : to live with gusto and usually fast and loose

— live up to : to act or be in accordance with

— live with : to put up with : accept, tolerate


They may not spend 365 days a year here but it sure sounds to me like these people "Live" here, and if anything is ludicrous, it's your comparison.
These "out of staters" aren't living in CT. PA. NY. FL etc. and working in New Hampshire. They Own property here !
If you "Owned" property in MA, then Yes, you should have the right, to have a say in how your tax dollars are spent there.

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

So, just how do you define the word "Live" ? This is how the Merrium Webster dictionary defines it.


Main Entry: 1live
Pronunciation: \ˈliv\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lived; liv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English libban; akin to Old High German lebēn to live
Date: before 12th century
intransitive verb
1 : to be alive : have the life of an animal or plant
2 : to continue alive
3 : to maintain oneself : subsist
4 a : to occupy a home : dwell b : to be located or stored
5 : to attain eternal life
6 : to conduct or pass one's life
7 : to remain in human memory or record
8 : to have a life rich in experience
9 : cohabit
transitive verb
1 : to pass through or spend the duration of
2 : act out, practice —often used with out
3 : to exhibit vigor, gusto, or enthusiasm in
4 a : to experience firsthand b : to be thoroughly absorbed by or involved with

— live it up : to live with gusto and usually fast and loose

— live up to : to act or be in accordance with

— live with : to put up with : accept, tolerate


They may not spend 365 days a year here but it sure sounds to me like these people "Live" here, and if anything is ludicrous, it's your comparison.
These "out of staters" aren't living in CT. PA. NY. FL etc. and working in New Hampshire. They Own property here !
If you "Owned" property in MA, then Yes, you should have the right, to have a say in how your tax dollars are spent there.

What you suggest would not be legal. Property ownership does not grant voting priviledges. If I owned 10, no let's say 1000 pieces of property between MA, CT, and NH. Would that mean that I get to vote 1000 times? Nope. I could only claim one of them as a residence--And I would have to live there more than 50% of the year.

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by Yankee

What you suggest would not be legal. Property ownership does not grant voting priviledges. If I owned 10, no let's say 1000 pieces of property between MA, CT, and NH. Would that mean that I get to vote 1000 times? Nope. I could only claim one of them as a residence--And I would have to live there more than 50% of the year.

I don't know how you come up with these comparison of yours but I do believe that whatever your smoking has to be illegal.

I give up on this thread. I believe Everybody that pays property taxes should have the Right to say who gets to spend those dollars and how. I don't give a rats a$$ what anybody else believes.

[Skip]

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

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

I give up on this thread. I believe Everybody that pays property taxes should have the Right to say who gets to spend those dollars and how. I don't give a rats a$$ what anybody else believes.

And then you make this statement:

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

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.

Explanation?

[Pineedles]

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..

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by Skip

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?

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 ?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

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?

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

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 ?

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.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Yankee

...And I would have to live there more than 50% of the year...

There is no "term of residency" in the State of New Hampshire, and the belief that you would have to live here "more the 50% of the year is incorrect.

Bear Islander continues to be correct in his comments about this subject.

In New Hampshire I can vote simply if I claim I am a resident the day of the election, provide or sign an affidavit stating/verifying my current NH address and do not vote in any other election.

And in actuality I do not even have to have a valid physical address. The Courts have ruled that a homeless person with no address still has a right to vote in at least one locality.

And this has been further addressed for those folks that live completely mobile either by motorhome or trailer. They can claim NH as home, even if it is a PO Box, as long as they do not claim any other locale as home.

I say this as a long time elected moderator for my hometown and as an attendee (mandatory) of several election forums hosted by members of the NH Attorney General's Office. This subject invariably comes up at each session and is clearly explained by AG Staff.

The concept is simple. Everyone has a right to vote in one location. The Government is extremely limited in its ability to attempt to restrict that right by employing numerous qualifications on residency. That is why in every major election cycle in New Hampshire (and a great many other States) there is always a number of political advocasy groups challenging voters based on perceived residency issues (it was a big issue in NH after the last Presidential election) and after investigating hundreds of complaints no criminal intent is discovered or prosecuted.

[Pineedles]

Skip,

The part where you say "as long as they do not claim any other locale as home." prompts a question. If I go to my CT town clerk's office and un-register to vote, if I can even do this I'm not sure but if I were able, I could truthfully answer the registered to vote question. However, since there are such things such as my driver's license, CCW license, all tied to CT, I guess I couldn't truthfully answer the question about where my home is, even for one day. Am I correct?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Skip,

The part where you say "as long as they do not claim any other locale as home." prompts a question. If I go to my CT town clerk's office and un-register to vote, if I can even do this I'm not sure but if I were able, I could truthfully answer the registered to vote question. However, since there are such things such as my driver's license, CCW license, all tied to CT, I guess I couldn't truthfully answer the question about where my home is, even for one day. Am I correct?

You are correct.

For purposes of residency (unless you are a college student or active duty military) you still have to prove or sign an affadavit that NH is your home.

Here's an example. You have a home, driver's license and cars registered in CT. You have a camp on the Lake up here. The day of the election you decide that you won't vote in CT so you go down and sign the residency affadavit and vote in NH. You make sure you don't vote in CT. But you never make an attempt to change your license or registrations and claim you moved back to CT the day after the election.

In this case, if discovered, you will be prosecuted by the AG for voter fraud as an argument will be made you really never changed residency.

Let's look at it another way.

Just before or during the election cycle you also move your license and vehicle registrations to NH. Even if its on the day of the election. Here you have clearly established your intent and it is OK to vote, because there is no length of residency requirement in NH.

Be forewarned though. Your home State may have entirely different laws and regulations on residency. I am only commenting on what the election laws are in reference to NH.

In reality its a commmon sense call for the moderator on the day of the election. I had to deal with hundreds of UNH students bussed every election cycle, and sort it out each time. What I found in Dover is that while there was plenty of confusion on election day by many voters, I never once had an honest case of intentional voter fraud.

[Argie's Wife]

NH RSA 669:4 Qualifications of Voters. Any person having his domicile within the town and qualified to vote under RSA 654:1 - 654:2 and 654:4 - 654:6 and who is on the town checklist shall be qualified to vote in town elections.

----------------------------------------------------------------

NH RSA 654:1 Voter; Office Holder.

I. Every inhabitant of the state, having a single domicile for voting purposes, being a citizen of the United States, of the age provided for in Article 11 of Part First of the Constitution of New Hampshire, shall have a right at any meeting or election, to vote in the town, ward, or unincorporated place in which he or she is domiciled. An inhabitant's domicile for voting purposes is that one place where a person, more than any other place, has established a physical presence and manifests an intent to maintain a single continuous presence for domestic, social, and civil purposes relevant to participating in democratic self-government. A person has the right to change domicile at any time, however a mere intention to change domicile in the future does not, of itself, terminate an established domicile before the person actually moves. A person's claim of domicile for voting purposes shall not be conclusive of the person's residence for any other legal purpose.
[The rest of this RSA can be read here: http://www.sos.nh.gov/rsa654.htm]

-----------------------------------------

NH Constitution - Article 11
[Art.] 11. [Elections and Elective Franchises.] All elections are to be free, and every inhabitant of the state of 18 years of age and upwards shall have an equal right to vote in any election. Every person shall be considered an inhabitant for the purposes of voting in the town, ward, or unincorporated place where he has his domicile. No person shall have the right to vote under the constitution of this state who has been convicted of treason, bribery or any willful violation of the election laws of this state or of the United States; but the supreme court may, on notice to the attorney general, restore the privilege to vote to any person who may have forfeited it by conviction of such offenses. The general court shall provide by law for voting by qualified voters who at the time of the biennial or state elections, or of the primary elections therefor, or of city elections, or of town elections by official ballot, are absent from the city or town of which they are inhabitants, or who by reason of physical disability are unable to vote in person, in the choice of any officer or officers to be elected or upon any question submitted at such election. Voting registration and polling places shall be easily accessible to all persons including disabled and elderly persons who are otherwise qualified to vote in the choice of any officer or officers to be elected or upon any question submitted at such election. The right to vote shall not be denied to any person because of the non-payment of any tax. Every inhabitant of the state, having the proper qualifications, has equal right to be elected into office.

June 2, 1784
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.
Amended 19l2 to prohibit those convicted of treason, bribery or willfull violation of the election laws from voting or holding elective office.
Amended 1942 to provide for absentee voting in general elections.
Amended 1956 to provide for absentee voting in primary elections.
Amended 1968 to provide right to vote not denied because of nonpayment of taxes. Also amended in 1968 to delete an obsolete phrase.
Amended 1976 to reduce voting age to 18.
Amended 1984 to provide accessibility to all registration and polling places.

[Bear Islander]

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.

[jeffk]

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".

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by jeffk

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.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

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.

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?

[Lakegeezer]

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.

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

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!
(

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.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

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.

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!!!

[MarkinNH]

Originally Posted by jmen24

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!!!

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.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by MarkinNH

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.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

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.

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.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by jeffk

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.

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

[no-engine]

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!

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by no-engine

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!

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.

[The Real BigGuy]

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!