Should Non Resident Tax Payers vote?

[GM doc]

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

Originally Posted by Ms Merge

Should non resident tax payers get to vote in the March town elections? These are the elections where towns vote on Zoning Ordinances, election of local officials and tax and budget issues.

[Fink2]

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.

[Belmont Resident]

Originally Posted by Red apple

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.

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.

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

[songkrai]

Originally Posted by Skip

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.

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.

[Slickcraft]

The form requires a signed statement to the following:

I understand that to vote in this city/town, I must be at least 18 years of age, I must be a United States citizen, and I must be domiciled in this city/town.
I understand that I can claim only one city/town as my domicile at a time. A domicile is that place, more than any other, where I sleep most nights of the year, or to which I intend to return after a temporary absence. By registering or voting today, I acknowledge that I am not registering to vote or voting in any other city/town.
I acknowledge that I have read and understand the above qualifications for voting and do hereby swear, under the penalties for voting fraud set forth below, that I am qualified to vote in the above-stated city/town, and, if registering on election day, that I have not voted and will not vote at any other polling place this election.

____________________ ____________________
Date Signature


In accordance with RSA 659:34, the penalty for knowingly or purposefully providing false information when registering to vote or voting is a class A misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of imprisonment not to exceed one year and a fine not to exceed $2,000. Fraudulently registering to vote or voting is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000.

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

[neckdweller]

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.

[Steveo]

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.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Steveo

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.

[Rusty]

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

[bilproject]

Originally Posted by Slickcraft

The form requires a signed statement to the following:



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

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?

[Woodsy]

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

[Steveo]

Originally Posted by TMI Guy

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.

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.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Steveo

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?

[MAXUM]

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.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

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.

[Belmont Resident]

Originally Posted by Rusty

"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.

[no-engine]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

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

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!

[RailroadJoe]

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?

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by no-engine

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!

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

[IslandRadio]

Originally Posted by RailroadJoe

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?

Oh yes, but that's different 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.

[RailroadJoe]

IslandRadio That's what I was thinking also.

[no-engine]

Originally Posted by AC2717

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

I did not say the business votes. I was thinking the business owner.

November 3 today. Let's all move on. Suppose I owned property with sleeping quarters in Cambridge, MA, Arlington, MA, Wolfeboro, NH, Bear Island on Lake W, and a town in northern Maine (maybe for my fishing pleasure). Where would I vote? I must claim ONE as my domicile or residence. Always been that, and always will.

One can attend any town meeting, city council meeting, or any corporate meeting; one will be permitted to speak to an issue provided the chair recognizes and one would identify themselves as a non-voting person. Done all the time at corporate meetings, merely following Roberts Rules of order.

Over & out, now go vote in one's domicile. I'll be so happy when all the bantering and finger pointing ads are over!!!

[WakeboardMom]

If you're voting in NH tomorrow, remember to bring your ID!

[jrc]

Especially if you are driving to the polls.

[WickedGoodOutdoors]

ONLY Property Onwers should be able to Vote!

They have a vested finacial interest hereas Non-Land Owners do not.

[songkrai]

Originally Posted by bilproject

Wording above is so vague that I could spend as little as a day in New Hampsire and still be a legal voter.

Not according to the NH Supreme Court.
It is 180 days plus one. If you have another home where you spend most of your time.

But in practical matters, as long as you don't vote anywhere else, no one really cares how long you spend outside NH.

[RLW]

WickedGoodOutdoors, I just noticed that you are fairly new to posting on the forum and glad you have joined us. Have fun and enjoy the Winni Forum while making many new friends. Glad you put in your 2¢ in.