HUB status in Moultonborough

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

The topic has to do with Moultonborough’s town meeting and the HUB, and you’re heading off the tracks now….��

Not really.
Should the ConVal lawsuit be found in the favor the 32 town/cities suing the State, the SPT would most likely be need to be expanded to deal with the hundreds of millions more needed to be raised. And the remittance of the excess funds back to the town, last done in 2011(?), would no longer be holding down the town tax rate.

The HUB expenditure would not be able to be reconsidered after the finding and facts of those trials, which could take a few years.
Voters aware of the situation may be taking that into consideration... along with items like the possible need to move the FD from mostly volunteer to full time employees.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

For now, please let us discuss Moultonborough’s town meeting and the HUB, and take on other governmental topics later. The proponents of the HUB have no interest in anything negatively impacting their extravagant plans.

[John Mercier]

I'm sure they don't.
They will keep getting the 25 signatures required to vote again and again until passage.
Any discussion here will not change that.

[lakewinnie]

I'm sorry - I just don't understand the point of some people's posts in this thread.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by lakewinnie

I'm sorry - I just don't understand the point of some people's posts in this thread.

I hear you….have you ever had someone show up and not realize they weren’t invited to the party?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Post #415 sounds awfully snarky. My apologies….my sweet and docile temperament took a leave of absence for a while. Please blame it on the Proponents of the HUB!
Sue

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Post #415 sounds awfully snarky. My apologies….my sweet and docile temperament took a leave of absence for a while. Please blame it on the Proponents of the HUB!
Sue

Not a bit snarky. If you don't want everybody to see everything, you hang it between sheets on the clothesline. In this case, perhaps this forum is the wrong place to post Moultonborough's unmentionable's and the voters in Moultonborough should start a closed group on FB?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

We noticed that the powers in charge of the rescheduled town meeting on June 1
want the parking areas near the main entrance to the academy to be for people with physical limitations, which is a fine plan IF ENTITLED PEOPLE don’t abuse the privilege….and they will abuse it unless the area is patrolled and the parking restrictions enforced. I am skeptical about the plan….the honor system is not for everyone, if you get my drift. Anyhow, hopefully the meeting will actually take place, the ballots counted honestly, and the HUB goes down to defeat, with SB2 in the WIN column. 🤞

[Descant]

This confuses me. If they are entitled, what is the abuse? I can't imagine that, in a small town, people would abuse handicap parking privileges without being publicly shamed in front of their neighbors. To me, this is New Hampshire. Granite Staters just don't do that.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

This confuses me. If they are entitled, what is the abuse? I can't imagine that, in a small town, people would abuse handicap parking privileges without being publicly shamed in front of their neighbors. To me, this is New Hampshire. Granite Staters just don't do that.

I think she means people that are not handicapped, but feel entitled enough to take the spaces regardless.

[TiltonBB]

Triple the number of people will fit now.

"This time, every possible measure is being taken to be able to handle what could be the largest turnout in town history."

This seems true: “There were so many people, and so many people I’ve never seen before. It’s been dividing this community since 2007. ... It’s going to be an interesting conversation, I’ll tell you that.”

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...e029601f7.html

[winni83]

This is the latest information on the Town Meeting on June 1, 2023, from the Town Website:

Posted on: May 23, 2023
2023 Annual Town Meeting
Town of Moultonborough

2023 Annual Town Meeting


To the inhabitants of the Town of Moultonborough in the County of Carroll in the State of New Hampshire qualified to vote in Town affairs, are hereby notified that the Annual Town Meeting, that was rescheduled from Thursday, the 11th day of May 2023 and will be held as follows:

Second Session of Annual Meeting (Transaction of All Other Business) will take place on Thursday, the 1st day of June 2023 at 6:00 P.M., at Moultonborough Academy, 25 Blake Road, Moultonborough, NH for voters to act upon Article 2 and the remaining articles of the Warrant.
Early check-in starts at 3:30 P.M. No reentry after check-in. Please bring a government ID.
If you have a copy of the 2022 Town Report, please bring a copy. Town warrant/budget copies will be provided.
Limited parking available at Moultonborough Academy, as availability will be for Handicap Parking. Carpooling is encouraged. Overflow parking available at Town Hall, Public Safety Building (Police/Fire Station), Function Hall (former Lions Club building), Moultonborough United Methodist Church, Bank of New Hampshire (after 5 p.m.) and Meredith Village Savings Bank (after 5 p.m.). Shuttle bus service will be provided starting at 3:30 P.M.
Childcare will be provided at Moultonborough Central School.
Any person with a disabling condition who would like to attend this public meeting and needs to be provided reasonable accommodations to participate please contact the Moultonborough Town Hall at 603-476-2347 so accommodations can be made."

Aside from the real potential to be as much of a disaster as the aborted May 11th non Town Meeting, just how is the Town Moderator going to enforce the "NO REENTRY AFTER CHECK IN"? Such policy was never in place before as I have gone outside to take a break from the endless comments at various town meetings. Does that mean you cannot leave the building itself or the room you are in. If the latter, good luck with stopping people from using the restroom. If the former or the latter, just when did Moultonborough enact this rule or is it just another power grab by the Town Moderator. Expect the no reentry rule to be challenged and if the rule has no validity, then perhaps the vote on the bond would be suspect or at least brought to the attention of bond counsel prior the issuance of the required bond opinion.

See issues in previous post about "Handicapped Parking" and what that means.

[longislander]

Early check-in starts at 3:30 P.M. No reentry after check-in.

The "reentry" had been mentioned at the last select board meeting and commented on how can that be enforced. No answer then, no answer now. The BoS even joked about maybe a movie should be provided!

It probably came up because of folks getting there early to claim a seat, and then taking off to return later.

Legalities could easiily kick-in. The moderator has no authority over the building, nor its property. He has authority of the meeting. That authority can easily be overturned by a vote of the voters to overrule thhe moderator. The supervisors of the checklist control the registering of voters and handing out of the ballot cards and "secrret ballots". Do they have any authority after folks have checked-in? Doubt it. Who has authority to refrain a voter from voting after legally registering to vote at town meeting? Anybody? What is the penalty for preventing a voter from exercising his/her right to vote?

Realistically, it is probably an attempt to instill some semblance of sanity with expected problems. However, you can rest assured that all parties involved with setting-up this town meeting will be in unison, including the police department.

Going off topic for a moment but cogent to town meeting secret ballots. Many times the wrong secret ballot is used 1, 2, or 3 and nothing is said about disqualifying those votes after the moderator insructions on which to use (self-evident). The excuse in the past is because old person used the wrong ballot. Really. I'm an old person and that insults me! What if it is ballot stuffing and using more than one ballot. Pass/fail decisions by a few votes have occurred in the past. Those votes should be negated.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by longislander

What if it is ballot stuffing and using more than one ballot.

That kind of thought belongs in a different forum.

Back to the Community Center and the Recreation Complex.

My main concern is how many bathrooms. And for how many genders.
Will there be a family rest room for baby changing diapers and such ?

[longislander]

My main concern is how many bathrooms. And for how many genders.
Will there be a family rest room for baby changing diapers and such ?

That kind of thought belongs in a different forum.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by TheProfessor

That kind of thought belongs in a different forum.

Back to the Community Center and the Recreation Complex.

My main concern is how many bathrooms. And for how many genders.
Will there be a family rest room for baby changing diapers and such ?

The SB2 discussion belongs in a different thread, yet it's here.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by ITD

The SB2 discussion belongs in a different thread, yet it's here.

SB2 discussion is here because if we had it, there wouldn’t have been the fiasco at the cancelled town meeting…..so it’s relevant in that respect.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

SB2 discussion is here because if we had it, there wouldn’t have been the fiasco at the cancelled town meeting…..so it’s relevant in that respect.

It's not at all relevant and your assessment is suspect, most likely dead wrong. I could bring up the current federal fiascos with inflation, debt and other maladies using your logic and I would be just as wrong as you.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by lakewinnie

I'm sorry - I just don't understand the point of some people's posts in this thread.

People that are not native to NH or went through school here generally don't understand our system of governance... especially at a local level.

Since it only takes 25 registered voters to petition the article. It can appear each and every time town meeting is held.

Should the article fail (bonds need 60% of the votes cast to pass), later in the meeting, the article can be brought back by reconsideration.

Because of this many times a voter will motion to restrict reconsideration... achieve a second... and sometimes win the vote (only 50% is necessary for that). But should enough voters leave, a proponent can motion to reconsider... enough votes and it goes to an adjourned session scheduled at least seven days later.

Should that happen, they will go over it again trying to gain the necessary majority of votes.

They can also go the route of capitalizing a special fund.
That would go through pretty much the same process but have a lower threshold for advancement.

So there really is no end to the saga. It is just part of living in NH. Those of us born and raised here have just gotten more used to it.