Moultonborough Public Hearing

[DickR]

Last night's hearing was very well attended, with cars parked well out along the access road. It was close to attendance at town meeting. The private roads were grouped into four classifications, and testimony was heard for each class separately. The chairman asked first for any objections to having any of the roads in that class declared an "emergency lane." As would be the case in all four cases, there were none. Then he asked for comments in favor. A few spoke very briefly, indicating being in favor, while a few others gave longer opinions. At one point, someone added the remark that people living on private roads ought to get the same services from the town as do those on town-maintained roads, considering that they pay taxes on the same basis. That got a hearty round of applause. At one point in the proceedings, the chairman stated, with a smile, "We get it!"

My sense of the hearing is that it was simply a formality, a rubber-stamping part of a required legal procedure that would enable the town to use the "emergency lane" state RSA loophole to get around the legal obstacle presented by an earlier state RSA blocking the use of town money for "maintaining" (including plowing) private roads. The selectman did say that the town had no plans to do any "maintaining" of private roads other than plowing. The town will simply continue to do what it has been doing for decades, what the residents overwhelmingly want done, and what the selectman themselves recognize must be done. Public input on the matter now is closed, and the vote will occur at the next meeting of the select board, which I believe is September 7. That, too, I believe will be another legal rubber stamping.

Ultimately, I think the state legislature ought to revisit the troublesome RSA and either amend or repeal it, allowing individual towns to decide for themselves what they want to do with town tax money regarding town roads. "One size fits all" thinking all too often is misapplied.

[Blyblvrd]

Originally Posted by DickR

Last night's hearing was very well attended, with cars parked well out along the access road. It was close to attendance at town meeting. The private roads were grouped into four classifications, and testimony was heard for each class separately. The chairman asked first for any objections to having any of the roads in that class declared an "emergency lane." As would be the case in all four cases, there were none. Then he asked for comments in favor. A few spoke very briefly, indicating being in favor, while a few others gave longer opinions. At one point, someone added the remark that people living on private roads ought to get the same services from the town as do those on town-maintained roads, considering that they pay taxes on the same basis. That got a hearty round of applause. At one point in the proceedings, the chairman stated, with a smile, "We get it!"

My sense of the hearing is that it was simply a formality, a rubber-stamping part of a required legal procedure that would enable the town to use the "emergency lane" state RSA loophole to get around the legal obstacle presented by an earlier state RSA blocking the use of town money for "maintaining" (including plowing) private roads. The selectman did say that the town had no plans to do any "maintaining" of private roads other than plowing. The town will simply continue to do what it has been doing for decades, what the residents overwhelmingly want done, and what the selectman themselves recognize must be done. Public input on the matter now is closed, and the vote will occur at the next meeting of the select board, which I believe is September 7. That, too, I believe will be another legal rubber stamping.

Ultimately, I think the state legislature ought to revisit the troublesome RSA and either amend or repeal it, allowing individual towns to decide for themselves what they want to do with town tax money regarding town roads. "One size fits all" thinking all too often is misapplied.

Thank you for the detailed update!

[neckdweller]

It's an easy thing to say "but we're different" when talking about broad based laws/statutes but Moultonborough and a lot of the towns in this area really are different. Where my year round residence is, there are a very small number of private roads and those that meet that classification are relatively short distance-wise. I don't know the exact figures but the number of miles of private roads and the people (both residents and non-residents) they serve has got to be a much larger percentage in this area.

I'm glad the Selectmen are going this route. You would have some interesting discussions among neighbors when it came time to pay up for plowing a 1/2 mile or 1 mile road and some don't care about accessing it in the Winter (I'm leaving out likely insurance requirements).

[Sue Doe-Nym]

DickR, you are absolutely right. As stated in the previous meeting this meeting was nothing more than a legal formality in order to get as many roads as possible officially designated as emergency roads. It does not change what will actually get plowed - which is same as last year.

Amazing that there still seems to be so much confusion.

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by DickR

... At one point, someone added the remark that people living on private roads ought to get the same services from the town as do those on town-maintained roads, considering that they pay taxes on the same basis. That got a hearty round of applause. At one point in the proceedings, the chairman stated, with a smile, "We get it!"

I hope they feel the say way when people drive down those same private roads for any recreational reason, up to and including sightseeing. Taxpayers only of course